What the science says

[CrusaderFrank]

jc, where did you get the idea that photons were "compelled" to travel from warmer to cooler? Oh, wait, let me guess.

SSSD

This is reality, Greg. That's how our Universe operates

 

[IanC]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Is English not your first language?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.

the warmer to cooler was not.

What law(s) of physics tells you that photons only go from warmer to cooler?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.

the warmer to cooler was not.

What law(s) of physics tells you that photons only go from warmer to cooler?

Newton's Second Law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.

the warmer to cooler was not.

What law(s) of physics tells you that photons only go from warmer to cooler?

Newton's Second Law

Copy and paste the version that you think backs your claim that photons only move from warmer to cooler.

 

[jc456]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

it won't warm the tube.

 

[jc456]

jc, where did you get the idea that photons were "compelled" to travel from warmer to cooler? Oh, wait, let me guess.

SSSD

they don't? so you indeed have the magic photon.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.

the warmer to cooler was not.

What law(s) of physics tells you that photons only go from warmer to cooler?

Newton's Second Law

Copy and paste the version that you think backs your claim that photons only move from warmer to cooler.

Thought I said Newton's Second Law

 

[jc456]

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

CO2 is though.

CO2 is a good conductor?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

What force is forcing heat upward?

no moisture correct.

Water vapor is a green house gas?

yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!
Too funny. So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

It is.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

And you can’t prove me wrong.

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

It’s called reemitted. Look it up.

CO2 is a good conductor?

It is.

What force is forcing heat upward?

heat

Water vapor is a green house gas?

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

It’s not heat.

 

[westwall]

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

CO2 is though.

CO2 is a good conductor?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

What force is forcing heat upward?

no moisture correct.

Water vapor is a green house gas?

yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!
Too funny. So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

It is.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

And you can’t prove me wrong.

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

It’s called reemitted. Look it up.

CO2 is a good conductor?

It is.

What force is forcing heat upward?

heat

Water vapor is a green house gas?

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

It’s not heat.

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas on this planet. You need to look that one up dude.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

Based on what laws of physics?

The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.

the warmer to cooler was not.

What law(s) of physics tells you that photons only go from warmer to cooler?

Newton's Second Law

Copy and paste the version that you think backs your claim that photons only move from warmer to cooler.

Thought I said Newton's Second Law

Great.

Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma.

Is that your final answer?

 

[Divine Wind]

Woot! Mankind matters!!!

Carbon dioxide levels cross 400 ppm threshold, likely highest in millions of years
Carbon dioxide — the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming — reached a significant symbolic milestone in our atmosphere this month, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.

For the first time, daily and weekly values of carbon dioxide in our planet's atmosphere have remained above 400 parts per million, said Scripps scientist Ralph Keeling, keeper of his father's famed "Keeling Curve," the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth.

Ralph Keeling and his late father Charles David Keeling have kept CO2 measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since 1958.

"We won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year — or ever again for the indefinite future," Keeling wrote in a recent blog post.

The increase in gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is fueling climate change and making "the planet more dangerous and inhospitable for future generations," the World Meteorological Organization has said.

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases are enhancing the planet's natural "greenhouse effect."

Based on paleoclimatic evidence, the last time carbon dioxide reached 400 ppm was millions of years ago, according to the journal Nature Geoscience. A 2009 report in the journal found evidence of CO2 levels of 365 ppm to 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago.

CO2 levels were around 280 ppm prior to the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, when large amounts of greenhouse gases began to be released by the burning of fossil fuels.

The burning of the oil, gas and coal for energy releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. These gases have caused the Earth's temperature to rise over the past century to levels that cannot be explained by natural variability.

Carbon dioxide is invisible, odorless and colorless, yet it's responsible for 63% of the warming attributable to all greenhouse gases, according to NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

Levels of carbon dioxide go up and down each year, reaching their highest levels in May and then going back down in the fall as plants absorb the gas.

"By November, we will be marching up the rising half of the cycle, pushing toward new highs and perhaps even breaking the 410 ppm barrier," Keeling said.
.

 

[jc456]

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

CO2 is though.

CO2 is a good conductor?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

What force is forcing heat upward?

no moisture correct.

Water vapor is a green house gas?

yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!
Too funny. So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

It is.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

And you can’t prove me wrong.

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

It’s called reemitted. Look it up.

CO2 is a good conductor?

It is.

What force is forcing heat upward?

heat

Water vapor is a green house gas?

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

It’s not heat.

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas on this planet. You need to look that one up dude.

No such thing as greenhouse gas. There is no evidence of such a thing.

 

[Divine Wind]

If mankind kills himself off, that's his fate. I won't lose sleep over it. I'm spending too much time deciding if I want to buy a Ford 250 4X4 8 cyl. gas or a diesel. Vroom! Vrooom!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

CO2 is though.

CO2 is a good conductor?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

What force is forcing heat upward?

no moisture correct.

Water vapor is a green house gas?

yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!
Too funny. So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

It is.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

And you can’t prove me wrong.

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

It’s called reemitted. Look it up.

CO2 is a good conductor?

It is.

What force is forcing heat upward?

heat

Water vapor is a green house gas?

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

It’s not heat.

So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?

If you have an issue with Stefan-Boltzmann, show your evidence.

It’s called reemitted.

A reemitted photon doesn't affect an object that absorbs it? Why not?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

You'll have to explain this "force acting upon heat".
Sounds like something you made up.

heat

Heat is a force? Why do you feel that?

Water vapor is a green house gas?

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

But...yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't

^
You admitted it right there. Are you off your meds?

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

It’s not heat.

We're not talking about heat, we're talking about IR.
Don't get (more) mixed up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Woot! Mankind matters!!!

Carbon dioxide levels cross 400 ppm threshold, likely highest in millions of years
Carbon dioxide — the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming — reached a significant symbolic milestone in our atmosphere this month, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.

For the first time, daily and weekly values of carbon dioxide in our planet's atmosphere have remained above 400 parts per million, said Scripps scientist Ralph Keeling, keeper of his father's famed "Keeling Curve," the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth.

Ralph Keeling and his late father Charles David Keeling have kept CO2 measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since 1958.

"We won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year — or ever again for the indefinite future," Keeling wrote in a recent blog post.

The increase in gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is fueling climate change and making "the planet more dangerous and inhospitable for future generations," the World Meteorological Organization has said.

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases are enhancing the planet's natural "greenhouse effect."

Based on paleoclimatic evidence, the last time carbon dioxide reached 400 ppm was millions of years ago, according to the journal Nature Geoscience. A 2009 report in the journal found evidence of CO2 levels of 365 ppm to 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago.

CO2 levels were around 280 ppm prior to the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, when large amounts of greenhouse gases began to be released by the burning of fossil fuels.

The burning of the oil, gas and coal for energy releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. These gases have caused the Earth's temperature to rise over the past century to levels that cannot be explained by natural variability.

Carbon dioxide is invisible, odorless and colorless, yet it's responsible for 63% of the warming attributable to all greenhouse gases, according to NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

Levels of carbon dioxide go up and down each year, reaching their highest levels in May and then going back down in the fall as plants absorb the gas.

"By November, we will be marching up the rising half of the cycle, pushing toward new highs and perhaps even breaking the 410 ppm barrier," Keeling said.
.

Excellent! Hopefully that will delay the next ice age.

 

[westwall]

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

CO2 is though.

CO2 is a good conductor?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

What force is forcing heat upward?

no moisture correct.

Water vapor is a green house gas?

yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!
Too funny. So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

It is.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

And you can’t prove me wrong.

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

It’s called reemitted. Look it up.

CO2 is a good conductor?

It is.

What force is forcing heat upward?

heat

Water vapor is a green house gas?

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

It’s not heat.

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas on this planet. You need to look that one up dude.

No such thing as greenhouse gas. There is no evidence of such a thing.

Yes, there is, the mechanism of what they do is undefined currently but greenhouse gases are well established.