@amdouglas: All value is subjective
They have shown convincingly that by coupling a rather standard dielectric cavity to exciton-polaritons in a monolayer of molybdenum disulphide, they could actually reach this strong coupling regime with a very large binding strength
I always thought this was possible :)
@cbae: care to elaborate?
@cbae: not correct, only the wavelength is different, the energy has the same transport mechanism, radiation.
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;
- distribute heat around the planet
- create a lag on warming and cooling
- 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.
@ScanIAm: correct, you also have to factor in the magnetic field and the intensity of the solar winds,..
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.
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;
- Conservation of energy
- 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.
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.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.