Entries:
Comments:
Discussions:

Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Maddus Mattus Maddus Mattus Maddus on C9, Is often ​controversi​al, But fun ​none-the-​less -​evildictait​or
  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @evildictaitor:

    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.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @Sven Groot: I think we are in agreement about the general physics. Radiation flows freely, heat flows from hot to cold.

    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.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    , 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.

     

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @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.

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @Proton2: Excellent piece!

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @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,..

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @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.

    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!

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @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).

  • Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

    @Sven Groot:

    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.

  • Prince Rupert's Drop

    I sometimes feel like a Prince Ruperts Drop Smiley