Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...

Do you not understand what "electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium" means?

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

Of course I do...a is a singular term...a black body...I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from.

I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from

a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

Equilibrium, with what, you might ask?

We've all seen, and mocked, your previous epicycle that said objects at equilibrium cease emissions.

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

Or maybe another source which disproves your claims? LOL!

Still don’t see two BB’s. Still says ‘a’

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

I'm not ducking...I am laughing in your deluded face.....I am asking why evaporation can't be caused by energy moving down hill from a warmer object...are you so blind in your belief that you never even considered that possibility?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. e

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...why would you think that only energy from a cooler object could make water evaporate?

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

The operative phrase there is left behind..

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.

At its most basic level, evaporation happens when molecules that have absorbed energy from some heat source begin to collide...via collisions some molecules reach an energy level sufficient to escape the liquid form to the vapor form...The heat source is still the reason for evaporation and the energy is still rolling down hill...cooler water molecules aren't warming anything enough to cause evaporation...you have lost any semblance of reason ian.....what the hell has happened to you?

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...

A cup of 20 C water in 10 C air at night will see zero evaporation?

I await the latest epicycle.........

 

[Wuwei]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

 

[jc456]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

 

[jc456]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

 

[Flash]

In theory CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, the chemistry of the earth is more more complex than the theoretical models indicate and in reality CO2 has very little effect of temperature.

CO2 has been much higher than it is now and the earth has been cooler. The CO2 levels have been lower than what it is now and the temperature has been warmer.

The historical temperature records actually shows CO2 levels in the atmosphere to lag temperature changes. If CO2 was the culprit then it would be the reverse.

It is fake news.

 

[Wuwei]

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

That is not my version it is believed by all the fathers of science. Your version has no known science father, that makes you a bastardized version of a troll.

But seriously folks, anyone who sets T=0 doesn't know that the science of thermodynamics really doesn't want you to do that. Furthermore, there is no rule that the emission has to be greater than the absorption. The net rate can be positive or negative.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Plank's law is not only a two way version, it is a multi-way version because all objects radiate BB energy everywhere. Neither Plank nor anyone else put any constraints on how the temperature of any other object might affect the radiation.

You should really already know these things. Are you pretending not to believe them because you would rather "win" at the expense of suffering a loss of any last vestige of dignity you have?

 

[jc456]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s gas yes. It’s what happens on my stove burners. I put a pan on it the pan radiates

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s gas yes

Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

 

[jc456]

It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s gas yes

Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

Makes it here

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s gas yes

Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

Makes it here

So no limit?

 

[jc456]

It’s a fireball it’s burning work

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s gas yes

Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

Makes it here

So no limit?

Of what?

 

[polarbear]

Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

I'm not ducking...I am laughing in your deluded face.....I am asking why evaporation can't be caused by energy moving down hill from a warmer object...are you so blind in your belief that you never even considered that possibility?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. e

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...why would you think that only energy from a cooler object could make water evaporate?

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

The operative phrase there is left behind..

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.

At its most basic level, evaporation happens when molecules that have absorbed energy from some heat source begin to collide...via collisions some molecules reach an energy level sufficient to escape the liquid form to the vapor form...The heat source is still the reason for evaporation and the energy is still rolling down hill...cooler water molecules aren't warming anything enough to cause evaporation...you have lost any semblance of reason ian.....what the hell has happened to you?

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...

A cup of 20 C water in 10 C air at night will see zero evaporation?

I await the latest epicycle.........

What, you figure it`s the 10 C air that causes water at 20 C to evaporate???
It evaporates as long as the vapor pressure is > than the partial pressure of H2O vapor in the air above it.
Certainly not because there is energy contributed by the 10 deg C air.

 

[SSDD]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope...a resonant radio frequency was observed....sorry that whole concept escapes you so badly...and the latest hypothesis is that Alfven waves are responsible for energy leaving the sun through the corona...in any event, no one is suggesting that it is the result of spontaneous energy movement besides you wack jobs...

 

[SSDD]

That is not my version it is believed by all the fathers of science. Your version has no known science father, that makes you a bastardized version of a troll.

Sorry guy....only true losers attempt to manipulate formulae via bad math in an attempt to make an unphysical thing physical....

Plank's law is not only a two way version, it is a multi-way version because all objects radiate BB energy everywhere. Neither Plank nor anyone else put any constraints on how the temperature of any other object might affect the radiation.

Yet another fundamental error on your part....Planck's law is one way...Planck's law speaks to an object...not objects...sorry, again, you are interpreting, and adding things that simply are not there.

 

[SSDD]

Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

I'm not ducking...I am laughing in your deluded face.....I am asking why evaporation can't be caused by energy moving down hill from a warmer object...are you so blind in your belief that you never even considered that possibility?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. e

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...why would you think that only energy from a cooler object could make water evaporate?

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

The operative phrase there is left behind..

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.

At its most basic level, evaporation happens when molecules that have absorbed energy from some heat source begin to collide...via collisions some molecules reach an energy level sufficient to escape the liquid form to the vapor form...The heat source is still the reason for evaporation and the energy is still rolling down hill...cooler water molecules aren't warming anything enough to cause evaporation...you have lost any semblance of reason ian.....what the hell has happened to you?

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...

A cup of 20 C water in 10 C air at night will see zero evaporation?

I await the latest epicycle.........

What, you figure it`s the 10 C air that causes water at 20 C to evaporate???
It evaporates as long as the vapor pressure is > than the partial pressure of H2O vapor in the air above it.
Certainly not because there is energy contributed by the 10 deg C air.

Just when you thought you had heard the stupidest thing possible, they top it by an order of magnitude.

 

[Wuwei]

Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope.

We went through this all before, and you could only come up with an non-existent meaningless answer. How did Penzias and Wilson know there is a CMB unless the signal went through the much warmer atmosphere to hit their telescope?

 

[Wuwei]

.Planck's law is one way...Planck's law speaks to an object.

Exactly. Furthermore, all objects radiate BB radiation according to Lambert's law. Nothing can change that.