Coffeehouse Thread

153 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    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).

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    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".

    Yeah, that's the problem. There is no "bouncing around". That's a simplification, not what actually happens. The radiation gets absorbed, then re-emitted as a different wavelength. Not "bounced".

    The radiation therefore doesn't get "absorbed by the emitter", at least not directly. And the actual original photons that were emitted definitely don't. The fact that you even pose that challenge to me signifies how deep your misunderstanding is.

    Look, I already explained in detail how this process actually works in the previous thread that I linked to. Why don't you tell me what new information you saw in that paper that invalidates that original explanation (that you conceded to at the time). It would save us both a lot of time if I can simply address the thing that made you reject that explanation rather than repeat it again.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    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.

    Generic Forum Image

    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!

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    That is a 3rd grade level oversimplification of the phenomenon. According to that graph, there should be an "atmospheric mirror" at a very specific altitude that bounces back "heat".

    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.

    Again, I'm over-simplifying, but please, for the love of $DEITY, do not take these graphs as a realistic depiction of what's going on. It's for illustration purposes only.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @PaoloM:  I know! It's ridiculous right? However, that's exactly what they claim.

    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,..

  • User profile image
    Proton2
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Proton2: Excellent piece!

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

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

    Origin of what? The carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, and when the heat gets deflected in all directions from the atmosphere (i.e. above the surface of the Earth), some of it goes back to the surface and some of it stays in the atmosphere. What's so difficult to understand?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

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

    So a molecule gets agitated by radiation (i.e. it heats up), and some time later it loses that energy again by emitting other radiation. How does it know which direction not to radiate in? Do molecules have a memory of where they received energy from?

    For that matter, your description means that the earth cannot radiate heat upwards, after all, that's where it originally came from (the direction of the the sun). And to use your silly mirror analogy: do you contend it's impossible to use a mirror to bounce light back to its source (the lamp)?

    EDIT: The problem is still, as in the previous thread, that you seem to think the second law means there can be no flow of energy from a colder to a hotter body, while in fact it only means there can be no net flow of energy from a colder to a hotter body.

    And nobody is claiming that's the case with the greenhouse effect: the net flow of energy is still from the earth into space, and if it weren't for continued input of energy from the sun it'd still become awfully chilly. However, while the net flow is still outward, that flow is slowed down because some of the energy is spending a longer time inside the system before being radiated outward again. And because we are still receiving energy from the sun at the same time, that leads to warming.

    Even your mirror analogy doesn't contradict that. If you point a light at a surface, it scatters the light outwards. If you hold up a mirror, it reflects that scattered light back to the surface. This means the lights spends a longer time between the mirror and the surface, only because reflection is instantaneous and light travels pretty fast, that extra time is measured probably in nanoseconds at most depending on how far the surface and the mirror are apart and is therefore not noticeable. However, heat re-emission and convection do have a significant delay.

    Of course, we explained all this in the previous thread. I'm still waiting for you to point out what new information you read since then that overturns that explanation.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    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.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Sven Groot:

    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.

    You use the words "second law of thermodynamics" like a mantra, but you've done nothing to show that there's any violation of it.

    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.

    Nobody in this thread even uttered the word "bounce" other than you. And here's a word that I've uttered more than once: "strawman".

    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.

    Gravity creates a lag on warming and cooling? You mean like on Venus that has a gravity of .9g and average temperature of 735K? The lower gravity is what prevents Venus from cooling as fast as the Earth does? Is that what you're saying?

     

  • User profile image
    mstefanik

    , evildictait​or wrote

    ... is about as intellectually honest as saying  "I watched a monkey for a whole hour, and he didn't evolve into a human, therefore evolution doesn't happen".

    I think I'm going to have to borrow that line on occasion.

  • User profile image
    cbae
  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    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.

    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:

    MIT wrote

    No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.

    (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.

    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.

    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.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , 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.

     

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    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. 

    Source? I did some digging on absorption of electromagnetic radiation and couldn't find anything to substantiate this claim.

    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.

    And for the seven billionth time, no one is saying otherwise! Heat does not flow from A to C in that example. But the radiative transfer from A to C (which does occur as far as I'm aware; again, find me a source that says otherwise) does decrease the rate at which C loses energy. C still loses energy, A still gains it, heat flows from C to A, but at a lower rate. The closer the two get in temperature, the slower the transfer gets.

    In the greenhouse effect, heat does not flow from a colder atmosphere to a warmer earth. However, there is radiative transfer from the atmosphere to the earth, which reduces the rate at which the earth cools down. And because the earth simultaneously still receives new energy from the sun, the end result is warming.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Here's a source that states the opposite of what you were asserting: http://cas.umkc.edu/physics/kruger/teaching/ModernPhysicsLab/page4/assets/StefanBoltzmanCombo.pdf

    As an object radiates energy it also absorbs energy from its surroundings otherwise it would eventually radiate all its energy and reach absolute zero.

    And yes, this explicitly refers to the case of a heat transfer from a hot body to a cold body. It even gives the explicit form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for net heat transfer, which includes both the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings (and convection is not considered in this law, this is pure radiation). This form of the formula can be found in many places if you search for this law.

    If a hot object cannot absorb any radiation from a colder object (which is what you are claiming), then why does the formula for net heat transfer include the temperature of the surrounding? If you say it shouldn't include that, that my source is wrong, then give me a source that backs up your assertion. Again, I couldn't find any.

    The formula for net heat transfer based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law explicitly states that radiation from colder objects reduces the rate of net heat loss of hot objects. This means that radiation emitted by the atmosphere can reduce the rate of heat loss of the earth, even when convection is ignored.

    Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    This is entirely besides the point of whether or not AGW or climate change is real. I just want you to realize that this argument using the second law of thermodynamics is entirely bogus. As soon as you realize that, you can go back to focusing on the real controversies in climate science (of which there are plenty).

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    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...

    The mass explains the atmospheric pressure, not the temperature.

    , not some radiation balance sheet.

    Nobody claimed mass is related "radiation balance sheet". You're the only one to bring mass of the atmosphere into the discussion.

    *snip*

    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,.

    Uh, no. Even if the meaning is "only", it implies that there could be MORE THAN ONE result, and that's exactly what Sven was implying--that energy can and does transfer in both directions.

    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.

    *snip*

    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).

    *snip*

    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.

    Your "thought experiment" is one of mechanics and is actually irrelevant to the discussion.

    Nevertheless, let's take your "experiment" and dispense with the units of measure that are meaningless to rotation. kph is a measure of LINEAR velocity.

    Suppose I have a Wheel A rotating at one revolution per second and Wheel B rotation at two revolutions per second. Is it possible for Wheel A to increase the rotational speed of Wheel B by making them contact?

    The answer, of course, is "yes". It's possible if radius of Wheel A is greater than SQRT(2) X radius of Wheel B.

    While we're doing "thought experiments" suppose that in scenario A, you take a brick that's 500 degrees and let it cool. In scenario B, you take a brick that's 500 degrees and place it in contact with another brick that's 400 degrees.

    In which scenario will the 500 degree brick cool to room temperature the quickest?

    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.

    *snip*

    Straw man. At least get the argument correct. Nobody is arguing that the Earth goes from a period of heating and period of cooling everyday because of its rotation on its axis. The premise is that the greenhouse effect keeps the temperature of the Earth from going down (as quickly) before the Sun returns the next day to heat up the Earth again. That's different from "raising the temperature". Nobody is arguing that carbon dioxide is making the intensity of the Sun's rays any higher.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.