Global Mean Temperature

[palerider]

The statement is, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." Tell me how that alone will allow you to compute the theoretical efficiency of a refrigerator or heat engine?

As far as heat engines go The Kelvin - Plank statement of the second law states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir."

You either have no more than a superficial knowledge of physics or you are being deliberately deceptive. I hope it is the former as the latter doesn't speak well of you. Your inability to come up with a single apt analogy strongly suggests the former.

 

[dogtowner]

The statement is, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." Tell me how that alone will allow you to compute the theoretical efficiency of a refrigerator or heat engine?

try not leaving off the "without external work" and it will make more sense.

 

[palerider]

try not leaving off the "without external work" and it will make more sense.

Making sense isn't what he is about. Clouding the issue to the point that you might actually believe that the atmosphere can backradiate to the earth and thus multiply the amount of energy available is his game.

 

[dogtowner]

Making sense isn't what he is about. Clouding the issue to the point that you might actually believe that the atmosphere can backradiate to the earth and thus multiply the amount of energy available is his game.

yeah. this isn't about random bounce ala ping pong balls. even those are subject to the LAWS of gravity.

I also enjoy how he seems to suggest that the laws of thermodynamics (or perhaps any other laws) can be ignored just because others come about. part of attaining "law" status means you exist in concert with all other laws. now its certainly possible that new science can invalidate laws but that would sort of be big news and cause to actively rescind that law.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sorry guy, it is you who clearly has been misled. Entropy has as much meaning in an open system as it does in a closed. The only difference being that in an open system energy can be (not must be) injected.

That is pretty much the meaning of a closed system.

By the way poynting vector physics is in use every single day in every field involving heat transfer from ironworks to computer engineering.

Sure, the poynting vector is useful but it does not tell you that radiation disappears leaving a black streak between light bulbs.

Here, a clip from a nasa page on the second law of thermodynamics: (emphasis nine"

"We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object. We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we don't encounter such a system in nature "

Your so called empirical evidence clearly only exists within the imaginations of the duped.

Look at my examples again. They go well beyond your 1899 idea of thermodynamics and have nothing to do with the fantasy paragraph above. I wouldn't say you are duped. Just ignorant of the formalism of thermodynamics and the observable, repeatable experiments that went into shaping that formalism.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. "

Yes, Clausius originally referred to something like that. An 1878 translation of his words are as follows

"In all cases where a quantity of heat is converted into work and where the body effecting this transformation ultimately returns to its original condition another quantity of heat must necessarily be transferred from a warmer to a colder body and the magnitude of the last quantity of heat in relation to the first depends only on the temperature of the bodies between which heat passes and not upon the nature of the body effecting this transformation or more briefly heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a warmer body"

Notice that Clausius was referring to heat, and never used the word "energy". So Pale, in the second sentence of your paraphrasing, the energy is understood to be heat energy. Clausius, of course, had no inkling of the quantum aspects of radiative thermodynamics.

The more modern entropy definition which subsumes the Clausius definition, of course strictly refers to heat energy." Pale, if you just simply use the word "heat" everywhere in your definition of the second law you will be OK with your wording.

The statement explicitly covers external mechanics and the statement says clearly that there can be no perfect refrigerator, or air conditioner, or heat pump, etc.
As far as heat engines go The Kelvin - Plank statement of the second law states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir."

Yes, your reference to Clausius, and Kelvin is old hat, but does not clarify radiative thermodynamics. You do need to read more about the how experiments go beyond the 1899 version, and the use of mathematical models in explaining the quantum mechanical experiments. You need to understand more about how quantum mechanics has influenced the modern concepts. If you want to progress in your understanding, you really need to drop the 1899 version and recognize how the quantization of black body radiation satisfies the entropy definition, and recognize that, "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... " as said by Einstein.

 

[palerider]

That is pretty much the meaning of a closed system.

Don't quite grasp open and closed either, huh?

Sure, the poynting vector is useful but it does not tell you that radiation disappears leaving a black streak between light bulbs.]/quote]

I am not sure where you get this black streak idea. Clearly it is a failure of understanding on your part. The energy flow at any point is the vector sum of poynting vectors arriving at that point. Do you believe there is a black streak at the point where the vector sum = 0? Are you going to tell me that the vector sum can not equal zero? I doubt that even you would try to pass that bit off. What sort of visual indication (if any) do you think that there might be at the point where the vector sum = 0? You imagine a black streak maybe?

Look at my examples again. They go well beyond your 1899 idea of thermodynamics and have nothing to do with the fantasy paragraph above. I wouldn't say you are duped. Just ignorant of the formalism of thermodynamics and the observable, repeatable experiments that went into shaping that formalism.

I have looked at your examples over and over and still, there is nothing there. You can't point to a single observable repeatable experiment that proves backradiation exists while I have described one to you that you can perform in your back yard that proves beyond question that it does not.

Notice that Clausius was referring to heat, and never used the word "energy". So Pale, in the second sentence of your paraphrasing, the energy is understood to be heat energy. Clausius, of course, had no inkling of the quantum aspects of radiative thermodynamics.

Not "my" paraphrasing; the statement comes from the physics department of Georgia State. My bet is that they have some inkling of the quantum aspects of radiative thermodynamics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

The more modern entropy definition which subsumes the Clausius definition, of course strictly refers to heat energy." Pale, if you just simply use the word "heat" everywhere in your definition of the second law you will be OK with your wording.

Sorry guy, you missed the boat again. Any of the below statements is applicable to the word entropy. Entropy covers both heat and energy.

Entropy - a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed
Entropy - a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work.
Entropy - a measure of the disorder of a system.
Entropy - a measure of the multiplicity of a system.

I can't help but notice that you did not list any of the so called greenhouse gas emission wavelengths that are not found within the infrared windows through which infrared astronomy is performed. Even when given hard, real world evidence that backradiation from so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is not happening, you can't disengage yourself from your world of fantasy and unphysical imaginary mathematical models and face the fact that you are one of many victims of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on modern civilization.

 

[Gipper]

Hey Pale, what are your thoughts on this?

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
• This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

[palerider]

Hey Pale, what are your thoughts on this?

I saw that. No surprise. What is surprising, or maybe not is that even this doesn't falsify their idiot hypothesis. Apparently nothing falsifies it which proves that it is pure bunk. When the antarctic grows instead of melting, it turns out that is just what they expected (not) even though it isn't what they predicted. And when it doesn't warm for 5 years, they say they need 10 to positively identify the human footprint. When it doesn't warm in 10, they say they need 16. When it doesn't warm in 16, what is next?

The fact is that the hypothesis has failed but rather than simply acknowledge that they were wrong and go back to the drawing board like actual scientists would do, they behave like politicians and rewrite history, tamper with the data, encourage media support for the lie, and ask for more money and time.

They would be laughable if their hoax weren't actually costing me money. Lagboltz is a fine example of why the hoax doesn't seem to be willing to be simply swept away as it deserves.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am not sure where you get this black streak idea. Clearly it is a failure of understanding on your part. The energy flow at any point is the vector sum of poynting vectors arriving at that point. Do you believe there is a black streak at the point where the vector sum = 0? Are you going to tell me that the vector sum can not equal zero? I doubt that even you would try to pass that bit off. What sort of visual indication (if any) do you think that there might be at the point where the vector sum = 0? You imagine a black streak maybe?

It is fully the outcome of your idea. You claimed that the radiation between a colder body was canceled out by radiation from the hotter body. If two light bulbs are almost at the same temperature, the cancellation should be almost complete. That would leave a dark streak between them. No dark streak means no radiation cancellation.

I have looked at your examples over and over and still, there is nothing there. You can't point to a single observable repeatable experiment that proves backradiation exists while I have described one to you that you can perform in your back yard that proves beyond question that it does not.

My examples showed that the quantum theory must be included in thermodynamics to handle many observable repeatable experiments. The major example I gave is that radiation thermodynamics absolutely must use quantum mechanics. You are dismissing the quantum aspect of the theory.

Not "my" paraphrasing; the statement comes from the physics department of Georgia State. My bet is that they have some inkling of the quantum aspects of radiative thermodynamics.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

Ok, I figured that you copied that from someplace else. The professor at Georgia State should have been more exact in his statement. See the little picture at the right just below Clausius's statement that he gives. That pictures show Qh and Qc as the energy between the bodies. You should know that Q stands for heat. So the professor does clarify his statement that it is heat that can't flow spontaneously, not energy. The professor didn't accurately paraphrase Clausius's words although he did clarify it with the accompanying picture.

Sorry guy, you missed the boat again. Any of the below statements is applicable to the word entropy. Entropy covers both heat and energy.

Of course it does. The concept of entropy encompasses all possible forms of energy.

Entropy - a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed
Entropy - a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work.
Entropy - a measure of the disorder of a system.
Entropy - a measure of the multiplicity of a system.

I see you also copied that from the same professors notes. I find no inaccuracy there.

I can't help but notice that you did not list any of the so called greenhouse gas emission wavelengths that are not found within the infrared windows through which infrared astronomy is performed.

That, of course, is the reason that IR astronomy is done at the highest and driest altitudes possible (including outer space) to get away from absorption.

 

[Lagboltz]

Not "my" paraphrasing; the statement comes from the physics department of Georgia State. My bet is that they have some inkling of the quantum aspects of radiative thermodynamics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

I believe you are right on that one. This is from the same professor at Georgia State. Be sure to go to his site to see his diagrams.

"This graphic was modeled after Collins, et al to depict the influences tending to drive the Earth's energy balance away from that which existed at the beginning of the industrial period. Since the net effect of human activity depicted here is a warming influence, this is the kind of quantitative analysis that is used to model global warming. The models that include the project effects of human activity do a better job of predicting the observed temperatures than do those with purely natural forcings."​

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/radfor.html#c1

Are you sure you want to be quoting him as an authority on thermodynamics?

 

[palerider]

I believe you are right on that one. This is from the same professor at Georgia State. Be sure to go to his site to see his diagrams.

​

"This graphic was modeled after Collins, et al to depict the influences tending to drive the Earth's energy balance away from that which existed at the beginning of the industrial period. Since the net effect of human activity depicted here is a warming influence, this is the kind of quantitative analysis that is used to model global warming. The models that include the project effects of human activity do a better job of predicting the observed temperatures than do those with purely natural forcings."​

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/radfor.html#c1

Are you sure you want to be quoting him as an authority on thermodynamics?

You really should try to read for comprehension. Your link was to a model based on collins, et al. There are all sorts of models there based on this person or that. For example, here is one based on trenberth et al.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/Earthebal.html#c1

Do you really believe that more than twice as much energy radiates down from the atmosphere as a result of backradiation than comes in from the sun? Really?

They show all sorts of models there but don't subscribe to any of them. If you read their statement on the greenhouse effect, you will find statements like may, and could rather than does. The laws of physics say what they say and the fact that various climate scientists are either deliberate frauds, or victims of an error cascade doesn't alter what the laws say or mean.

So again, which of the so called greenhouse gasses is emitting at a frequency that is not found in the infrared windows that make infrared astronomy possible? Again, direct hard observable evidence that backradiation is not happening and you continue to ignore; just like the way you ignore the fact that a parabolic reflector, when pointed at clear sky produces a temperature lower than the ambient, and when the temperature is 45 or less the temperature in the reflector gets low enough to form ice on water. If backradiation were beaming back to the surface of the earth, you couldn't cause the formation of ice with an ambient temeprature in the 40's.

You have been hoaxed and are just to proud to admit it. That is sadder than falling for the hoax in the first place.

 

[palerider]

It is fully the outcome of your idea. You claimed that the radiation between a colder body was canceled out by radiation from the hotter body. If two light bulbs are almost at the same temperature, the cancellation should be almost complete. That would leave a dark streak between them. No dark streak means no radiation cancellation.

Again a failure on your part. If one bulb is warmer, the other simply will not radiate along the vectors where the sum is zero.

My examples showed that the quantum theory must be included in thermodynamics to handle many observable repeatable experiments. The major example I gave is that radiation thermodynamics absolutely must use quantum mechanics. You are dismissing the quantum aspect of the theory.

I am dismissing your imaginary evidence insofar as you believe it proves backradiation.

Ok, I figured that you copied that from someplace else. The professor at Georgia State should have been more exact in his statement. See the little picture at the right just below Clausius's statement that he gives. That pictures show Qh and Qc as the energy between the bodies. You should know that Q stands for heat. So the professor does clarify his statement that it is heat that can't flow spontaneously, not energy. The professor didn't accurately paraphrase Clausius's words although he did clarify it with the accompanying picture.

I know that you wish that energy was not included in the second law, but alas, I am afraid that it is. Photons are energy and they won't move from a low energy source to a high energy source either. Everywhere you look in reference to the second law, energy is the topic.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

I see you also copied that from the same professors notes. I find no inaccuracy there.

That, of course, is the reason that IR astronomy is done at the highest and driest altitudes possible (including outer space) to get away from absorption.

Ahhhhhhh. So there is no CO2, or other greenhouse gasses present at the altitues where IR telescopes are located. Tell me, at what altitude do the so called greenhouse gasses cut off?

Did you note the posting by dogtowner on the fact that there has been no warming for the past 16 years even though the amount of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased?

What would falsify the greenhouse hypothesis for you?

 

[Lagboltz]

You really should try to read for comprehension. Your link was to a model based on collins, et al. There are all sorts of models there based on this person or that. For example, here is one based on trenberth et al.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/Earthebal.html#c1

Do you really believe that more than twice as much energy radiates down from the atmosphere as a result of backradiation than comes in from the sun? Really?

They show all sorts of models there but don't subscribe to any of them. If you read their statement on the greenhouse effect, you will find statements like may, and could rather than does. The laws of physics say what they say and the fact that various climate scientists are either deliberate frauds, or victims of an error cascade doesn't alter what the laws say or mean.

I knew you would get a rise out of that hyperphysics site. They weren't totally accurate about the second law and how a glass greenhouse actually works. I would give them a C+ on that.

So again, which of the so called greenhouse gasses is emitting at a frequency that is not found in the infrared windows that make infrared astronomy possible? Again, direct hard observable evidence that backradiation is not happening and you continue to ignore; just like the way you ignore the fact that a parabolic reflector, when pointed at clear sky produces a temperature lower than the ambient, and when the temperature is 45 or less the temperature in the reflector gets low enough to form ice on water. If backradiation were beaming back to the surface of the earth, you couldn't cause the formation of ice with an ambient temeprature in the 40's.

Addressing those questions is quite moot when you don't understand that the Clausius version of the second law refers to heat. He never used the word "energy" in his statement of the second law. You have to understand that aspect of the second law before you can understand anything else.

You have been hoaxed and are just to proud to admit it. That is sadder than falling for the hoax in the first place.

Now now, don't get bad-tempered. Insults are a poor way to make an argument.

 

[Lagboltz]

Again a failure on your part. If one bulb is warmer, the other simply will not radiate along the vectors where the sum is zero.

In post 65 you stated,

"Yes, the radiation cancels out, or will eventually. If you measure the temperature of the two filaments and they are the same, then the radiation between the two are canceling out."​

You are essentially saying that there is a dark band between bulbs. It's your idea, not mine.

I am dismissing your imaginary evidence insofar as you believe it proves backradiation.

My point was that it proves that statistical and quantum mechanics are imperative for understanding thermodynamics, especially radiation, in order to prevent a historical ultraviolet catastrophe where infinite energy would emanate from a black body.

I know that you wish that energy was not included in the second law, but alas, I am afraid that it is. Photons are energy and they won't move from a low energy source to a high energy source either. Everywhere you look in reference to the second law, energy is the topic.

Clausius did not use the word energy at all in his definition of the second law. He used "heat." The Georgia State paraphrasing in their "hyperphysics" site specifically cited Clausius but misquoted him where they used the word "energy" when they should have used the word "heat". The site immediately countered that miswording with a picture that showed that they were actually referring to heat. The site also put that wording and picture in a box titled, "Second Law: Refrigerator."

So in short, you are pinning your whole objection to backscatter on the basis of one page in a site that
1) Explained refrigeration and not radiation thermodynamics.
2) Explicitly referred to Clausius,
3) Misquoted Clausius's wording, by typing energy instead of heat,
4) Clarified the mistake with a diagram that referred solely to heat
That miswording from that site became your rallying cry for your arguments. Isolating misquotes from text while ignoring the very obvious context is a poor way to promote science.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

You are right in that the entropy expression must generally use wording involving energy because it must more explicitly handle mechanical and chemical energy and other forms of energy along with heat energy. However it is an odd definition because text books and journal articles don't use the concepts of "productivity, growth and repair."

Ahhhhhhh. So there is no CO2, or other greenhouse gasses present at the altitues where IR telescopes are located.

I have to disagree with you. There are CO2 and other green house gasses present at ground-based, but high altitude telescopes. That is why the best IR astronomy is done from planes, balloons, or space.

What would falsify the greenhouse hypothesis for you?

It would be falsified if there was observable, repeatable evidence that there is a dark streak between light bulbs at roughly the same wattage.