@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.
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.
@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.
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,.
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.