For the radiation from the co2 in the atmosphere to be absorbed by the earth, it has to have a shorter wavelength then the radiation leaving the earth. It has to increase entropy. Because the co2 is a lower temperature then the surface, it emits radiation longer then the earth. Therefore the theory that radiation from co2 heats the planet, is nonsense.

The atmosphere has three functions;

1.  distribute heat around the planet
2. create a lag on warming and cooling
3. Raise the surface temperature by atmospheric pressure

These three effects create a habitable planet and not co2 sending energy back to the planet.

Ask any NASA engineer what the biggest problem in space is, cooling or warming. You will be surprised by the answer and you would be surprised by how resilient and efficient our climate system is.

Yes, it is really that simple. Don't let these climate cahoots tell you otherwise. You are not messing up the planet by emitting co2. You do not have to pay Al Gore for his co2 certificates to enter heaven. It will still be waiting for you. If you want to conserve energy, fine, I'm all for that. I'm all for a cleaner environment. But co2 is not a pollutant, so we are diverting resources to a non issue that could be put to better use.

Mass slows things down, not emitting radiation. It puts a lag on warming and cooling, net effect on the average temperature (with a constant mass) is zero.

The greenhouse effect posted by evil and described by the ipcc is not about slowing down the transfer of heat, but about heat being derived from energy sent back down by emitted radiation by co2 in the atmosphere. I've stated many times that that theory violates the laws. I've asked you multiple times to post your version of the greenhouse effect,.

The notion that heat takes longer to leave is folly. If it takes longer to leave, then it also must take longer to arrive. Net result, zero. But that is not what the theory describes. As with any heat transfer system, if the input is increased the output will increase also over time.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a mathematical calculation model, not a description of what is taking place in real life. Any physicist will tell you that you cannot use it when and where you want and derive conclusions from it. Same reason the ether model is still a helpful tool. Therefore reducing real life objects to black bodies is helpful for calculations, but it can only be used for an outcome not for a behavior.

The environment the object is in is indeed a key factor, but not the emitted radiation should be considered, but the energy levels of the objects. A high energy object will emit short wave radiation and a colder object will emit longer wave radiation. A high energy object will not absorb the long wave radiation, as it is emitting much shorter wave by itself. In order to calculate how much radiation is absorbed one has to deduct the field the object is in, from it's own radiation. But again, this is not proof that it will get absorbed. It will just emit less.

I'll try and dig up more information about absorption and emission of radiation.

The peeling factor 😊

The maximum mass of the atmosphere is determined by the mass of the planet, not by our emissions of CO2. If we can't hold it down, it will fly out into space.

Try again.

It holds more water then your claim that all real life objects behave as black bodies. Nowhere in nature can this effect be observed, yet you claim this to be true. It also holds more water then the bouncing radiation idea, or perpetuum mobile.

As with my question, where is the work done in the climate to force the energy back down, you haven't provided answers. I have provided them, yet you continue to shake your head and deny the theory on the face of it. You are letting your emotions get in the way of your objective way of thinking.

The greenhouse theory is not basic physics, because it violates the two basic thermodynamic physical laws;

1. Conservation of energy
2. Heat flows from hot to cold

It violates law number one when they say radiation adds energy again and again to the climate. Surely you can only give off so much energy, to claim that this is somehow 'trapped', is nonsense.

It violates law number two when they say a radiation from a cold body will give off energy to a body at a higher temperature. For this to be true, it has to be non spontaneous, there has to be additional work done. It has to increase entropy elsewhere to decrease entropy in the radiation cycle. As there is no second power source present in our climate system, it violates it. You can not radiate the same energy you absorb, there has to be a conversion (work). That's why the surface heats under the radiation of the sun, shortwave is absorbed, turned into work and then emitted as longwave.

Prove these two points wrong, and I will concede.

@Proton2:

I don't give a hoot about skeptic's reputation, if something is plainly that wrong.

Hot objects do absorb radiation from their surroundings.

The article you posted deals with theoretical constructs, black bodies. They do not exist in real life. Therefore, if you want to represent a real life object by a black body, you have to assume that it receives energy from it's surroundings. Otherwise, as they rightly state, the black body would radiate till it reaches absolute zero. To present this as proof that hot objects receive energy from colder objects, is a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equasion, as real life objects are not black bodies.

In order for an electron to absorb a photon, the energy of the electron has to be at a lower level then the electron that emitted the photon. An electron will not just absorp any photon.

http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp

The links I posted clearly show that the surroundings can reduce the rate of heat loss from a hot object, and that's all the greenhouse effect requires to have the stated effect.

Changes in the mass of the system can surely effect it's rate of warming and cooling, no disagreement there. Since the atmosphere is neither growing nor shrinking in mass (significantly) your examples are rendered moot, as far as climate is concerned.

Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface.

Like we discussed, this is in violation of the second law. You can't absorb radiation comming from a lower energy system, it's impossible. Therefore the greenhouse effect as described there, cannot be.

We can discuss whether the hot object actually gains energy from it's surroundings or not another time. It's semantics really. As long as there are temperature differences, heat will flow, till the system is in thermal balance.

What we do not, clearly, agree on, is what the greenhouse effect is.

What according to you is the greenhouse effect? In detail or a link,. please.

2 days ago, Sven Groot wrote

That's because there is no heat flow from cold to hot! A little bit of radiation goes that way, but the overall heat flow is still from hot to cold, just slower! If you think that's not allowed, give me a source, any source, that states that's what the second law means. Give me any source that says "photons are completely prohibited to travel from a low energy object in the direction of a higher energy object". I can't find any. By contrast, here's a source that supports my position:

I've always claimed in this thread and in the previous, that this was exactly the case. But not just for warming, also for cooling. Mass creates a slowness in the system. It's not due to the composition of the atmosphere, but due to it's mass. Also the mass explains what the average temperature on earth's surface should be, not some radiation balance sheet.

(Emphasis theirs) They use the description "sole result" rather than the word net, but it's the same thing. No one who understands both thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect would claim that its sole result is the transfer of hear from a cooler to a hotter body.

You misunderstand the context of the word sole, it's used in the form of; only. The only result can be from hot to cold,.

See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement

Without additional work, heat cannot flow from cold to hot. For instance a compressor in a fridge, then heat will flow from cold to hot, when it's forced by the compressor.

Try this one:

We have a brick, let's call it brick A, with a temperature of 30C. We place it in a vacuum, isolated from anything else. This brick radiates infra-red in all directions, right?

Now we place a second brick, brick B, with a temperature of 10C, next to it. The radiation of brick A reaches brick B, right?

Now we place a third brick, brick C, with a temperature of 50C, next to brick A. According to you, the radiation of brick A somehow does not reach brick C. Which process or force is stopping the radiation from reaching it? And don't say it's because of the second law: the second law is a description of what happens, not why it happens. I'm asking you what is physically blocking the radiation from going that direction after brick C was added.

No, no heat from brick A, radiation flows freely. Heat is absorbed radiation turned into work. I'm sorry if I confused you in the past comments. Radiation flows freely, but radiation will not get absorbed and add additional heat. You are quite right that the rate off energy loss will change when you introduce new bricks and that they will transfer heat to one another, till a stable situation is reached (till they are all the same temperature, regardless of type of material or mass).

What actually happens is that the radiation from brick A does reach brick C, and therefore brick C does receive energy from A. However, because brick C was already at a higher temperature, it loses energy itself at a higher rate than brick A, and brick A receives more energy from brick C than it's radiating. Therefore, the actual flow of heat is still from C to A. That's the same thing that happens with the back radiation in the greenhouse effect.

No, there you are just plain wrong.

Let's say radiation does reach the brick. The brick is vibrating at a higher frequency (as the sun is relative to our earth, that's why we absorb them and release a lower wavelength of light, this is discussed in describing entropy). The incoming photons vibrate at a lower frequency. So in order to absorb the photon, the brick first must speed the photon up to it's own frequency. Where is this energy coming from? The brick would have use it's own energy to speed up the incoming photon, in order to absorb it. Using your own energy will decrease the vibration of the brick and it will cool down. So either they drain energy or do not get absorbed at all, they clearly cannot add energy.

You can perform this thought experiment;

I run two identical tires at different speeds. I run one tire up to 15 kph and the other to 25 kph. I rotate them both anti clockwise. If I put the two tires in contact with one another, it's folly to claim that the 15 kph tire will add energy to the 25kph tire. Kinetic energy went from the 25 kph tire to the 15 kph tire and they are both now rotating at 20kph.

There is no positive flow of heat from A to C, it's impossible. Radiation? Yes,. Absorption? Maybe,.. Raising the temperature? Hell no.,. Heat flows from C to A.

You cannot decrease entropy without performing additional work. That's what the second law is all about, none of this net or sole mumbo jumbo.

Show me where in the climate system this additional work is taking place, then we can discuss the back radiation.

How do electrons know where to go? Do they have memory?

How do gas molecules know where to go? Do they also need a memory?

No, of course not.

That's why we have that darn second law of thermodynamics, it states that heat flows from hot to cold. Regardless of what kind of radiation fields you have. It's the same with electrons, from positive to negative. Same with gas molecules, from high pressure to low pressure. This is basic physics. Nature always tries to balance everything out.

To state that there can be a heat flow from cold to hot and that the net flow must be from hot to cold, is folly. There is no net flow of heat. There is either a flow or no flow.

You seem to agree with me, that the bouncing radiation is a stupid idea. Good, glad we can agree on something. But due note that this is the core of the IPCC reports, see the link proton posted. I like the NASA idea of the energy budget better. But what they hell do they know, it's not like they've been to the moon or something.

You seem also to agree with me that the atmosphere creates a lag on cooling and warming. Good, now we just need to get the facts straight that either it's done by gravity (like on Mars, Venus and all the other planets, moons, stars, black holes, pulsars, etc. etc. in the galaxy) or (like on earth, yes we are that special) by greenhouse gasses.

Look at the previous graph I posted, that is the representation of all the 'known' radiation flows by;

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/

That's not what's happening. The infrared radiation is scattered and deflected IN ALL DIRECTIONS by CO2 molecules. If there were less CO2 molecules, less heat would be deflected back to the surface, and more heat would escape the gravity well.

Yes all directions, except it's origin,.. That's what the trifle with the second law is about,..

Now I'm confused,.

The whole greenhouse theory rests on the fact that they believe that the earth emits longwave radiation, CO2 absorbs this and sends it back to the planet, where it gets reabsorbed and reemitted, this is the theory of the greenhouse effect.

That's what the graph I posted above and on the previous page clearly shows. Bouncing around longwave radiation.

If you now conclude that this isn't the case, then we are in agreement!

I would like to add a challenge to you.

Show me one experiment or natural phenomenon where photons (or electrons) get absorbed by the emitter, without additional work performed (or external powersource).

Then let's begin by what you define to be the greenhouse theory, as there are several versions.

I'm talking about this model;

Where longwave radiation is bounced between the atmosphere and the surface (shown in the graph on the right hand side). The problem I have with this model, is the "Back Radiation".

If you have an other interpretation/explanation of the greenhouse effect, please share.

That would be interesting indeed. But I'm not really interested in climate science. What I'm interested in, is what government does with climate science as a legitimacy.

When my energy bill got raised by 50% to help save the planet, I started reading about the science that is supposed to justify this raise. The internet being the main source of information. I thought it was a dubious story, but I had no reason to distrust them. Then when additional levies got raised in order to save the planet, I started to look into the policy effects of the redistribution of these resources and meanwhile found opposing voices to the science.

What I found, really shocked me. I found the science lacking and I found that the policies have a negative effect on the wellbeing of people. This single issue has changed my whole attitude towards science and towards government, it was a real eye opener for me.

I just hope that on this forum, with a lot of intelligent people and many of you I consider my peers, come to see that the emperor has no clothes.

Edit;

Small note I would like to make, I do not doubt that our climate is changing. I doubt that CO2 emissions drive these changes. And I doubt that lowering our CO2 emissions is the right way to reverse these changes, I would much rather spend the resources on climate change adaption.

4 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Just because Maddus is wrong on climate change, doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good employee at Microsoft. Lack of a PhD might be obstructive to getting a job in MSR though.

*snip*

http://careers.microsoft.com/

Thanks, appreciate it

I've presented my case, it's time to draw conclusions,.

So either you are a believer in the greenhouse theory that states that bouncing radiation between the atmosphere and the surface is responsible for warming, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. That CO2 is the main driver behind this effect and we should at considerable expense (human lives) limit the emissions of this gas.

Or you are a believer that gravity and the sun is what determines the temperature and the climate here on earth and that we are just along for the ride.

Move goalposts much?

These are not peer reviewed articles, but blog posts.

If you want to rebuttle the idea that mass is responsible for climate change, you have to do it in a peer reviewed journal.

Until then, this is the best model we have. In order to invalidate it, you will have to come up with a better alternative.

Where do I apply?

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

there he is;

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ferenc.pdf

Miskolczi!

44 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

Okay Maddus, I'm calling bullshit. This is what you said here:

*snip*

Despite the fact that you didn't change your view on climate change, you did agree that greenhouse theory did not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, at least you agreed that that argument against climate change was flawed.

And here you are, using that same argument again. So you either have a very short memory, are dishonest (you only said you conceded to end the discussion, not because you actually understood what I was saying), or just incredibly stupid.

Correct, I did not have the answers then, so I conceded. I have learned new things and have changed my mind. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to do that.

Maybe I'm just really stupid, or maybe you are gullible, who knows? Let's try and find out shall we?

I want you to give me your source (a reliable, scientific source, so either an article in a peer reviewed journal or a regular article that cites its sources so I can check them) for the idea that it is the mass and pressure of the atmosphere, not its composition, that causes it to heat the earth.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

http://www.knmi.nl/~laagland/cursus/presentaties_voorjaar12/Ozawa.pdf

I'll try to dig up the paper that was a game changer for me, by Mikolsky (or something, why can't these dudes be called Jones?).

I also want you to explain the following, again citing your sources: if the earth is in equilibrium, why has it been both much hotter (ice ages) and much colder in the past? If higher pressure equals higher temperature, then why is it so cold on at the bottom of the ocean?

The activity of the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. The evidence is against CO2 being any factor.

That has to do with the fact that liquids do not compact (much) under pressure. So the temperature of the oceans are dictated by the sun, rather then gravity. As sunlight doesn't penetrate very far into the ocean, they are relatively cold.

Citation for gas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_law

Citations for oceans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_zone 

Again, I want you to cite sources. They don't have to be scientific papers, anything that cites a sufficiently reliable source is okay (even a Wikipedia page with proper citations will do). I just want to know what source of information you are using to base your opinion on, that it's not just because it's "obvious" or "self evident". After all, since you claim to be a skeptic, you must have properly verified sources for your opinions.

It seems like you think I do this for mere amusement, I don't. I'm convinced that they've got it wrong. And I'm convinced people are actually hurting because of the actions we take in order to 'save the world'. I think it's unjust and unfair to condemn people to energy poverty, because we are afraid to share to wealth. None should be forced to live without cheap abundant energy, without it, life is harsh and unpleasant. That's my motivation behind it.