jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,576
- 34,656
- 2,180
it is when it is misused.
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Like covailent bonds?
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Really? Which physical law says that? The second law states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...that statement seems to state explicitly that conditions can exist where precisely the throttling down that you claim is impossible must happen...refer again to the SB law...as the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its cooler surroundings changes the amount of energy it radiates changes...and ONCE AGAIN...net energy exchange is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and has never been observed or measured in reality so don't bother going there...it is fiction and nothing more till such time as it is observed...which it will never be because it doesn't happen.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Energy moving up hill..moving from a more disorganized state (cooler) to a more organized state (warmer) violates entropy which states that energy always moves towards a more disorganized state and that all natural processes are irreversible precisely because energy is always moving towards a more disorganized state?
"
An asymmetry in the up- and downwelling eigen radiation (only from atmosphere) will be found with a stronger contribution in downward direction, which is caused by the lapse rate as well as the density profile over the atmosphere with higher temperature and pressure at lower atmospheric layers and therefore a higher net downward radiation. Calculations for the radiative forcing at doubled CO2 concentration and at an average cloudiness give a 30% smaller forcing than applied by the IPCC.
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As long as the surface is assumed to be a black or gray absorber, it does not filter any frequencies of the incoming radiation, in the same way as it does not reject any frequencies of the broad Planck spectrum of a thermal radiator, independent, if it has a higher or lower temperature than the earth. Radiation converts to heat after an absorption, followed by an emission in accordance with a newly adjusting thermodynamic equilibrium, which only requires that the net energy transfer is in balance.
"
From https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
This is a pretty thorough analysis of radiation and energy movement into, through, and out of the atmosphere. And the mechanisms by which the energy is constantly being switched back and forth into different forms.
"
The radiation in upward direction is the only possibility to render any absorbed energy to space and by this to keep the atmospheric temperature in balance with all the supplied direct and indirect energy from the sun. On the other hand, the downwelling part determines the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface, which is the source term of the so heavily discussed atmospheric greenhouse or atmospheric heating effect. While the upwelling radiation only contributes to cooling, as long as the radiation can escape to space, the downwelling part only causes heating, when it reaches the surface.
"
This has to be taken in context. It is describing the two possible exits for energy contained in the atmosphere. Either it is lost to space or returns to the surface.
The surface expels energy by radiation, conduction and convection (containing latent heat). Only some of the radiation can escape to space causing cooling of the system, the rest is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms in response.
The atmosphere expels energy by radiation and conduction. These are the only paths. Conduction can only return to the surface, therefore cannot cause cooling of the total Earth system. Radiation can cause cooling but only if it escapes to space. Some of the radiation produced by the atmosphere does escape, some returns to the surface, but most is simply reabsorbed by the atmosphere.
The energy absorbed by the Earth system swirls around being transformed back and forth into different forms. Whenever it takes the form of radiation that can escape through the atmospheric window, it leaves (if it is traveling in the right direction). Radiation can also escape if it emitted high up in the rarified atmosphere and doesn't get reabsorbed. Those are the only two escape routes, the only way to cool the Earth system.
An asymmetry in the up- and downwelling eigen radiation (only from atmosphere) will be found with a stronger contribution in downward direction, which is caused by the lapse rate as well as the density profile over the atmosphere with higher temperature and pressure at lower atmospheric layers and therefore a higher net downward radiation. Calculations for the radiative forcing at doubled CO2 concentration and at an average cloudiness give a 30% smaller forcing than applied by the IPCC.
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As long as the surface is assumed to be a black or gray absorber, it does not filter any frequencies of the incoming radiation, in the same way as it does not reject any frequencies of the broad Planck spectrum of a thermal radiator, independent, if it has a higher or lower temperature than the earth. Radiation converts to heat after an absorption, followed by an emission in accordance with a newly adjusting thermodynamic equilibrium, which only requires that the net energy transfer is in balance.
"
From https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
This is a pretty thorough analysis of radiation and energy movement into, through, and out of the atmosphere. And the mechanisms by which the energy is constantly being switched back and forth into different forms.
"
The radiation in upward direction is the only possibility to render any absorbed energy to space and by this to keep the atmospheric temperature in balance with all the supplied direct and indirect energy from the sun. On the other hand, the downwelling part determines the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface, which is the source term of the so heavily discussed atmospheric greenhouse or atmospheric heating effect. While the upwelling radiation only contributes to cooling, as long as the radiation can escape to space, the downwelling part only causes heating, when it reaches the surface.
"
This has to be taken in context. It is describing the two possible exits for energy contained in the atmosphere. Either it is lost to space or returns to the surface.
The surface expels energy by radiation, conduction and convection (containing latent heat). Only some of the radiation can escape to space causing cooling of the system, the rest is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms in response.
The atmosphere expels energy by radiation and conduction. These are the only paths. Conduction can only return to the surface, therefore cannot cause cooling of the total Earth system. Radiation can cause cooling but only if it escapes to space. Some of the radiation produced by the atmosphere does escape, some returns to the surface, but most is simply reabsorbed by the atmosphere.
The energy absorbed by the Earth system swirls around being transformed back and forth into different forms. Whenever it takes the form of radiation that can escape through the atmospheric window, it leaves (if it is traveling in the right direction). Radiation can also escape if it emitted high up in the rarified atmosphere and doesn't get reabsorbed. Those are the only two escape routes, the only way to cool the Earth system.
Efficiency is a big part of the real world. The most efficient way to enclose area with a defined circumference is a circle. The radius is equal in all directions. A square is not as good but still better than a rectangle.
The moon receives as much solar energy as the Earth so why isn't it as warm? The main reason is the length of a lunar day/night cycle. It is very hot in the day and very cold at night. The energy inputs and outputs are extreme, less efficient. Like how a circle has more area per circumference than a flat rectangle. Only more so, because area is a ^2 relationship and temperature is a ^4 relationship. If the lunar 'day' was half as long the average temperature would be warmer. If you halved it again, warmer still. And so on, ignoring the effects of spinning the mass.
The predicted temperature of the Earth is -18C, from the average amount of sunlight hitting it. Now hold on a minute. We were talking about efficiencies. An Earth day is shorter than a lunar day but it is still 24 hours. Shouldn't the hypothetical max (circle) be greater than the actual Earth (square) which is greater than the Moon (rectangle)?
Obviously the atmosphere has something to do with it. But how does the atmosphere raise the average temperature ABOVE the theoretical maximum derived from the solar input?
I'll talk more about this if anyone is interested. Or we can just leave it as another unanswered question.
The moon receives as much solar energy as the Earth so why isn't it as warm? The main reason is the length of a lunar day/night cycle. It is very hot in the day and very cold at night. The energy inputs and outputs are extreme, less efficient. Like how a circle has more area per circumference than a flat rectangle. Only more so, because area is a ^2 relationship and temperature is a ^4 relationship. If the lunar 'day' was half as long the average temperature would be warmer. If you halved it again, warmer still. And so on, ignoring the effects of spinning the mass.
The predicted temperature of the Earth is -18C, from the average amount of sunlight hitting it. Now hold on a minute. We were talking about efficiencies. An Earth day is shorter than a lunar day but it is still 24 hours. Shouldn't the hypothetical max (circle) be greater than the actual Earth (square) which is greater than the Moon (rectangle)?
Obviously the atmosphere has something to do with it. But how does the atmosphere raise the average temperature ABOVE the theoretical maximum derived from the solar input?
I'll talk more about this if anyone is interested. Or we can just leave it as another unanswered question.
This law-
And the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
You can only control the amount of radiation produced by an object by adding or subtracting to the amount of energy available to be converted to radiation.
Any object above absolute zero will attempt to cool down by radiating. It always radiates but it only cools if it emits more energy than it receives.
Your description of what is allowed or prohibited is at odds with reality, therefore it is either wrong or incomplete.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
The more you talk, the more I can see why your physics professor needed to correct you...unfortunately, he didn't correct you well enough. You rush to these knee-jerk conclusions without first considering the basics...and if you don't have the basics, you don't have jack.
The 2nd law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Tell me ian, how, exactly, do you think radio waves represent spontaneous energy movement? You believe microwaves in a microwave oven represent spontaneous energy movement?..and lasers..you believe the energy emitting from a laser is emitting spontaneously?
The key word is spontaneous....apply enough energy and you can move energy to wherever you want...but spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...in any amount simply doesn't happen...and it is all moot anyway since infrared energy does not warm the air.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
This law-
And the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
You can only control the amount of radiation produced by an object by adding or subtracting to the amount of energy available to be converted to radiation.
Any object above absolute zero will attempt to cool down by radiating. It always radiates but it only cools if it emits more energy than it receives.
That law states no such thing...that law states that a perfect black body radiating in a vacuum devoid of any other matter radiates according to its temperature to the 4th power...an ideal, perfect black body in a perfectly empty universe...a fantasy.
Bring matter into the equation and j starts changing in accordance with the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its cooler surroundings. You keep forgetting the basics and jumping to knee jerk conclusions...think ian, I know that you are capable of it.
There is no law that says that the rate of energy emitted by an object can not change if its environment changes...quite the contrary..the application of the SB law relating to radiators that are not perfect black bodies radiating into perfectly empty space says exactly the opposite...P keeps changing as the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings change.
Last edited:
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
It is neither...the problem here is your inability to separate reality from fiction...you believe models over observation. Even though we can observe and measure energy movement...and know by the evidence that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, you continue to believe that it does because a model which you have given godlike powers says that it does. The model doesn't represent reality...and it never will..
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The 2nd law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Tell me ian, how, exactly, do you think radio waves represent spontaneous energy movement? You believe microwaves in a microwave oven represent spontaneous energy movement?..and lasers..you believe the energy emitting from a laser is emitting spontaneously?
What about the 343 K walls in my home? Did they spontaneously achieve that temperature?
The quote you attribute to me is actually a cut&paste from the paper I linked. Did you read it?
The paper does a thorough job of discussing the energy inputs and outputs for the atmosphere, as well as the mechanisms for transforming energy between radiation, kinetic and potential.
The most important point was that cooling can only happen from radiation loss to space.
The most interesting point was that their calculations for a doubling of CO2 was 30% less than the IPCC value.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Let me guess..you believe your HVAC generates spontaneous energy movement. And I suspect you should learn to convert temperatures...you just claimed that the walls in your home are heated to 157 degrees F.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Doesn't matter who said it..if you believe it then both you and the author are wrong.
Infrared does not warm the air...the topic is fantasy.
Unless it was 100% less, it is wrong...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...Infrared does not warm the air...infrared only warms solid objects and there is overwhelming evidence to support the claim.
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
That's a good point that has not been stressed enough here. If we look your comment in terms of photons, once a photon leaves its source it can only be characterized by its spin, wavelength, and direction. Any information about heat is lost. Those parameters give no indication of it's source or how long it has been in flight. It's existence is only manifested when it hits something. That something can be at any temperature.
This law-
And the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
You can only control the amount of radiation produced by an object by adding or subtracting to the amount of energy available to be converted to radiation.
Any object above absolute zero will attempt to cool down by radiating. It always radiates but it only cools if it emits more energy than it receives.
That law states no such thing...that law states that a perfect black body radiating in a vacuum devoid of any other matter radiates according to its temperature to the 4th power...an ideal, perfect black body in a perfectly empty universe...a fantasy.
Bring matter into the equation and j starts changing in accordance with the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its cooler surroundings. You keep forgetting the basics and jumping to knee jerk conclusions...think ian, I know that you are capable of it.
There is no law that says that the rate of energy emitted by an object can not change if its environment changes...quite the contrary..the application of the SB law relating to radiators that are not perfect black bodies radiating into perfectly empty space says exactly the opposite...P keeps changing as the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings change.
This equation is obviously not for a perfect Blackbody because it has a term for emmisivity.
You should also note that it has no term for area. It is an intensive property.
If you divide the j by area then you get an actual amount of power, an extensive property. But you then have to do the calculations for every angle that is in line-of-sight of the area you defined.
Your confusion seems to stem from confusing the intensive property of j with the extensive property of P.
The object exists and radiates. The environment that surrounds the object does not change the radiation, which is always proportional to the temperature of the object.
We can turn the intensive property of radiation into the extensive property of power by defining the radiating surface area of the object. We can turn the intensive property of temperature into the extensive property of total heat content by measuring the mass and the specific heat for its constituents.
With the two extensive properties of power and heat content we can calculate the rate of cooling as time passes. Quickly at first and then progressively slower.
If we add a second object nearby, it also radiates in the same fashion as the first. Some of the radiation from the first will be intercepted by the second, and vice versa. The amount will be determined by the line-of-sight connection. The amount of radiation energy absorbed will add to the total energy content of the two objects, thus slowing the rate of their cooling. But both objects will still be cooling overall.
I will leave it there for now.
Right you are. I have shown SSDD the Planck curves for 10C and -10C on multiple occasions. The range is almost exactly the same. How can the two objects differentiate a 15 micron photon by the temperature of its source? Obviously they cannot. Therefore energy is being swapped back and forth. It is also a visual explanation of why the SLoT works. The higher temperature object produces more radiation at a slightly higher average energy wavelength. The difference between the two graphs is the amount of energy available to effect change.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Let me guess..you believe your HVAC generates spontaneous energy movement.
Let me guess, you don't know how my walls reached 70 F?
And I suspect you should learn to convert temperatures...
You got me, I added 70 F to 273 K.
294 K.......better?
Now, back to your claim that energy can move from cooler matter to warmer matter if work is done........
Hey Wuwei, you like theoretical problems.
Don't you find it interesting that the GHE is large enough to more than compensate for the inefficiencies caused by unequal input and output energies?
While it is just a variation on the theme of why the surface is warmer than the Sun's input, don't you find it amazing that entropy gained by converting sunlight to IR can 'power' such a large effect?
I realize the actual energy comes from radiation not lost to space but it seems to me that entropy gained in the total area causes entropy loss by the storage mechanism in a subset area.
I could be wrong. What do you think?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump announces news conference about a major trade deal tomorrow morning- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 9
-
‘Time For Accountability’: Ted Cruz Rattles Off List Of Times Taxpayer-Funded NPR Was Biased Against Conservatives- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
