Global Mean Temperature

[dogtowner]

Most of your post continues on with the Classical Thermodynamics idea that energy will not spontaneously flow from cold to hot and that has been covered before.

Because its a LAW above refute that cannot be ignored.Yet you try because you must.

I only glanced at his paper...
I would presume

I'm afraid that turns what follows into blah blah blah

At the bottom of the atmosphere, when IR radiates from the earth and hits the nearby CO2, item (1) will cause surface temperature warming. Item (2) will exhibit some backscatter to earth and thereby cause a shielding of earth mantel energy escaping at that IR bandwidth. Item (3) will cause both.

In any case the CO2 causes a warming, or prevents a cooling.

all this despite it's inability to do so.
but the water all around it in proportionally far larger concentrations can.

while there may be strength in numbers (of duped and/or lazy scientists) that is not the same as truth.

Science is science because it follows the rules. when you abandon that as the warmers have (reference ClimateGate revelations), its no longer science but dogma.

 

[Lagboltz]

Because its a LAW above refute that cannot be ignored.Yet you try because you must.

You don't understand. I was not disagreeing with Pale, I was just commenting that he keeps repeating the 2nd law over and over as if I didn't believe the law. I keep telling him I truly believe in the 2nd law. So don't say I don't.

I'm afraid that turns what follows into blah blah blah

Again, you misunderstood. I certainly could have read the paper and started a line by line interminable argument, but I simply hypothetically accepted what Pale stated without further analysis because it would lead to the same the final result anyway.

but the water all around it in proportionally far larger concentrations can.

I totally agree with that.

while there may be strength in numbers (of duped and/or lazy scientists) that is not the same as truth.

My post was talking about scientists over a century ago. Sadi Carnot initiated the understanding of classical thermodynamics in 1824. Wilhelm Wien discovered the blackbody radiation law experimentally in 1896. Max Planck discovered how to avoid the classical UV catastrophe in 1900. Einstein related it to quantum theory in 1916.

Their work was way way before the controversy on AGW. You can hardly call them duped and lazy or politically motivated.

My posts are referring to the quantum version started in 1916. You and pale are referring to Classical Thermodynamics as it was between 1824 and 1900.

Science is science because it follows the rules. when you abandon that as the warmers have (reference ClimateGate revelations), its no longer science but dogma.

ClimateGate has nothing to do with the early work on Thermodynamics. You and pale are rejecting Einstein's detailed explanation of Plank's work, "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... " He said that in 1916!! Einstein clearly did not believe that light bulb radiation cancels out like you guys do. Yet you guys consider him as perpetrating a "sad, pitiful, inadquate substitute for actual science." My attitude is if you don't want to believe in AGW, fine, but do it without bastardizing your understanding of Thermodynamics.

 

[palerider]

I keep telling him I truly believe in the 2nd law. So don't say I don't.

Perhaps you believe in the "spirit" of the law, but you most certainly don't believe the letter of the law as evidenced by your insistance that backradiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth is possible when the second law clearly says that it is not possible.

Again, you misunderstood. I certainly could have read the paper and started a line by line interminable argument, but I simply hypothetically accepted what Pale stated without further analysis because it would lead to the same the final result anyway.

Or you could have simply proven him wrong by telling us how absorbed IR might cause a vibration in a CO2 molecule without losing any energy at all when clearly causing the vibration uses energy which necessitates emission at a slightly lower frequency which would take the emission out of the absorption range of other CO2 molecules.

My post was talking about scientists over a century ago. Sadi Carnot initiated the understanding of classical thermodynamics in 1824. Wilhelm Wien discovered the blackbody radiation law experimentally in 1896. Max Planck discovered how to avoid the classical UV catastrophe in 1900. Einstein related it to quantum theory in 1916.

Then you should have no problem providing a link to an observable, repeatable experiment that proves backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is possible.

You and pale are rejecting Einstein's detailed explanation of Plank's work, "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... " He said that in 1916!

He also said: "Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. (Albert Einstein)

Einstein clearly was not convinced of the reality of the photon you believe in.

 

[Lagboltz]

Hey Pale! Glad to see you back.

Perhaps you believe in the "spirit" of the law, but you most certainly don't believe the letter of the law as evidenced by your insistance that backradiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth is possible when the second law clearly says that it is not possible.

I'm not insisting anything. Einstein said it first. I can't take credit for his ideas. You believe in Thermodynamics as it was in 1899. Quantum Mechanics has arrived. That's the new letter of the law. C'mon read a book. Get out of the dark ages.

Or you could have simply proven him wrong by telling us how absorbed IR might cause a vibration in a CO2 molecule without losing any energy at all when clearly causing the vibration uses energy which necessitates emission at a slightly lower frequency which would take the emission out of the absorption range of other CO2 molecules.

Why should I waste time on a biologist who publishes in someone else's blog. He's your baby. You go idolize him.

Then you should have no problem providing a link to an observable, repeatable experiment that proves backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is possible.

I already gave you an observable experiment. Weren't you listening?

Get two light bulbs one at 100 watts and the other at 99 watts. Put them 1 foot apart. Check to see if 99% of the radiation between the bulbs cancels out. If the light radiation between bulbs dims to 1%, then you need to see an eye specialist. I predict an increase of radiation to 199 watts, which shows that back radiation from the cooler object to the warmer object is physically observable. That shows Einstein is right -- what a guy.

Now you also asked for a repeatable experiment. Go to a neighbor and have him observe the light bulbs. Then go to the nearest grade school science class and tell them your theory and try to have them confirm your experiment. Prepare for laughter and spit balls.

He also said: "Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. (Albert Einstein)

That is way too funny. You are pitifully trying to take a statement out of context, yet you foolishly leave the context in your quote. He is talking about general relativity, not thermal radiation.

Einstein clearly was not convinced of the reality of the photon you believe in.

That is even sillier. Einstein got his second Nobel Prize on the photoelectric effect and demonstrated that photons exist. This is fun. C'mon Mr Troll, what else you got? Do you believe in the theory of phlogiston? Bet you do.

 

[Lagboltz]

Before this thread dies out, a final recap of the previous several dozen confusing posts should be made.

Many global warming skeptics think CO2 cannot backscatter electromagnetic energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer earth mantel. They believe it violates the second law of thermodynamics, that heat can never flow from a cold body to a warmer one.

These skeptics are thinking of the second law as it was in the year 1899 before electromagnetic radiation was understood. Scientists at that time computed an "ultraviolet catastrophe" of radiation thermodynamics.

When black body radiation was understood in 1900, the catastrophe was averted. Einstein expressed the law in terms of photons in the new Quantum Mechanics in 1916. That new understanding of the second law means that separated warm and cold bodies are always radiating electromagnetic energy (photons) toward each other. Photons are not heat, so there is no conflict.

The most important aspect that the skeptics do not understand is that, when both bodies are at different temperatures, the hot body always radiates more photon energy to the colder body than the colder body radiates to the hotter body. Thus, the second law, as it applies to heat energy, always remains intact under the new radiation thermodynamics.

Some skeptics here even thought that the electromagnetic radiation of the earth would cancel out the CO2 backscattered radiation. This is not possible and a simple experiment with two light bulbs shows that radiation does not cancel between them.

It is further ironic because even if the backscattered CO2 actually did "cancel out" some of earth's radiation, the "cancelled radiation" from earth would still cause the earth to lose less heat by way of radiation! The CO2 would still act as a thermal blanket.

The conclusion: If skeptics want to argue against anthropogenic global warming , they cannot use the second law of thermodynamics as an argument that backscattered CO2 IR emission toward the earth is suppressed. Even if they do insist on a radiation cancellation argument, the result is that Earth outgoing radiation is still diminished just as much, but not in a scientifically correct way.

 

[palerider]

Hey Pale! Glad to see you back.

There is a lot of work around my place in preparation for winter. I don't have a great deal of time for this till it is done.

C'mon read a book. Get out of the dark ages.

Read a book and believe in models with no empirical evidence? No thanks.

Why should I waste time on a biologist who publishes in someone else's blog. He's your baby. You go idolize him.

Again with the logical fallacy. It doesn't matter whether he is a biologist, a physicist, an arborist, or a patent clerk. You can either disprove him or you can't. Clearly you can't and claiming to disregard him because of the multiple degrees he holds (including physics, and mathematics) he chooses to operate principally in biology only highlights your failure.

I already gave you an observable experiment. Weren't you listening?

Yes, I was listening but clearly you weren't. That experiment fails every time. If one of the fillaments absorbed energy from the other, it would necessarily emit more energy thus becoming brighter which would cause the other bulb to in turn absorb more energy and thus emit more energy thus becoming brighter which would cause the other bulb to in turn absorb more energy and thus emit more energy thus becoming brighter which would cause the other bulb to in turn absorb more energy and thus emit more energy thus becoming....

You are stuck in an infinite positive feedback loop and I am afraid that simply isn't possible. The foundation of Maxwell's equations is the fact that the IR energy flow at any point is the sum of the poynting vectors arriving at that point. In the case of your lightbulbs, the sum of the vectors is zero, thus no energy flow.

Face it guy, there is no such thing as backradiation. Use your brain for just a second. If there were backradiation from the atmosphere coming back to earth infrared astronomy would be impossible. The amount of backradiation claimed by climate science coming back from the atmosphere towards the surface of the earth would completely overwhelm the very small amounts of IR being captured in IR astronomy. It would be like trying to see polaris at noon. Either backradiation is a lie or infrared astronomy is a lie. Which is it? Personally, I will go for infrared astronomy as there is actual observable, repeatable evidence in support of their findings.

That is even sillier. Einstein got his second Nobel Prize on the photoelectric effect and demonstrated that photons exist.

And yet, he was never satisfied with the idea of light as a particle. Go figure. Guess that is the difference between an actual scientist and a faithful member of a congregation.

 

[palerider]

Many global warming skeptics think CO2 cannot backscatter electromagnetic energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer earth mantel. They believe it violates the second law of thermodynamics, that heat can never flow from a cold body to a warmer one.

Not a matter of belief lagboltz. That is the statement of the second law of thermodynamics. It is you and the rest of the warmers who BELIEVES that the second law means something other than what it says.

These skeptics are thinking of the second law as it was in the year 1899 before electromagnetic radiation was understood. Scientists at that time computed an "ultraviolet catastrophe" of radiation thermodynamics.

I haven't seen a formal revision of the statement of the second law of thermodynamics or any proof that the statement is incorrect. Can you show me the new statement and the experimental evidence proving the old statement wrong?

When black body radiation was understood in 1900, the catastrophe was averted. Einstein expressed the law in terms of photons in the new Quantum Mechanics in 1916. That new understanding of the second law means that separated warm and cold bodies are always radiating electromagnetic energy (photons) toward each other. Photons are not heat, so there is no conflict.

The earth is not a blackbody. As to photons, they are energy. They are in fact, the smallest measurable bit of energy in the EM field and according to the second sentence in the second law of thermodynamics:
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

So yes, there is a conflict.

The most important aspect that the skeptics do not understand is that, when both bodies are at different temperatures, the hot body always radiates more photon energy to the colder body than the colder body radiates to the hotter body. Thus, the second law, as it applies to heat energy, always remains intact under the new radiation thermodynamics.

There is no heat, or energy transfer from the colder object to the warmer object. Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and actually read it for comprehension.

Some skeptics here even thought that the electromagnetic radiation of the earth would cancel out the CO2 backscattered radiation. This is not possible and a simple experiment with two light bulbs shows that radiation does not cancel between them.{/quote]

The fact that neither of the bulbs ever get brighter or emit more energy than is coming in from the electric outlet is proof that neither is absorbing energy from the other. Any absorption would necessitate that the bulb would emit more energy than it had coming in which would constitute a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, but you can't have perpetual motion.

It is further ironic because even if the backscattered CO2 actually did "cancel out" some of earth's radiation, the "cancelled radiation" from earth would still cause the earth to lose less heat by way of radiation! The CO2 would still act as a thermal blanket.

Again, if backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth were happening, infrared astronomy would be impossible. The amount of radiation climate science claims is coming back from the atmosphere would completely overwhelm the very small amount of incoming IR that infrared astronomy relies on. One of the two claims is a lie. Either backradiation does not exist or backradiation does not exist.

The conclusion: If skeptics want to argue against anthropogenic global warming , they cannot use the second law of thermodynamics as an argument that backscattered CO2 IR emission toward the earth is suppressed. Even if they do insist on a radiation cancellation argument, the result is that Earth outgoing radiation is still diminished just as much, but not in a scientifically correct way.

Sorry guy, but the second law says what it says. If you don't believe it, that is your choice and if you want to believe that it doesn't mean what it says, that is also your choice but understand that you hold that belief based on something other than hard emprical evidence.

 

[Lagboltz]

Read a book and believe in models with no empirical evidence? No thanks.

There is empirical evidence galore. Classical Thermodynamics cannot compute the specific heat in an ideal gas; why the specific heat in solids decreases at increasingly low temperatures; predict the existence and properties of Bose-Einstein condensates, and properties of Fermi-Dirac gasses.

Classical Thermodynamics totally fails and creates an ultraviolet catastrophe in trying to compute the properties in thermal radiation physics. The computation leads to an infinite amount of energy being radiated. In short, classical physics completely predicts the utter failure of the second law of thermodynamics for radiation physics.

The formal definition of the second law involves entropy, and not just heat flow. Statistical Thermodynamics can compute all the above properties, and salvage the catastrophe of the second law in radiative Thermodynamics. Yes, there is a lot of empirical evidence that you apparently don't understand or know about.

You believe in an old version of the theory that fails in radiation physics and you still want to cling to that classical theory in that very application for which it fails.

Face it guy, there is no such thing as backradiation. Use your brain for just a second. If there were backradiation from the atmosphere coming back to earth infrared astronomy would be impossible. The amount of backradiation claimed by climate science coming back from the atmosphere towards the surface of the earth would completely overwhelm the very small amounts of IR being captured in IR astronomy. It would be like trying to see polaris at noon. Either backradiation is a lie or infrared astronomy is a lie. Which is it? Personally, I will go for infrared astronomy as there is actual observable, repeatable evidence in support of their findings.

C'mon read a book. IR astronomy is very limited on earth and can only view IR between the absorption bands of water, CO2 and other green house gasses. That is why IR astronomy is best done from space.

And yet, he was never satisfied with the idea of light as a particle. Go figure. Guess that is the difference between an actual scientist and a faithful member of a congregation.

I agree. Scientists have no choice but to accept what is proven by experiments. The faithful members of a congregation are not constrained that way.

 

[Lagboltz]

Not a matter of belief lagboltz. That is the statement of the second law of thermodynamics. It is you and the rest of the warmers who BELIEVES that the second law means something other than what it says.

I haven't seen a formal revision of the statement of the second law of thermodynamics or any proof that the statement is incorrect. Can you show me the new statement and the experimental evidence proving the old statement wrong?

Oh yes there has been a formal revision of the second law. The simplest formal statement of today's modern definition the second law is through entropy: "Entropy does not decrease in a closed system." That is now the second law of Thermodynamics. The second law as stated by you no longer encompasses the full field of Thermodynamics. It is way too limited to include many important phenomena in thermodynamics such as the maximum power from heat driven motors, and the limitations of efficiency for refrigerators, and, yes, radiation physics. See this for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. Let me state it more clearly:

The second law of Thermodynamics:​

Entropy does not decrease in a closed system.​

Your classical second law does not take into account heat transfer under the influence of external mechanical energy, internal chemical energy, potential energy, etc. The classical law that you love says nothing about the broader picture of these aspects of thermodynamics. The second law must accommodate all these scenarios. That is why it is now defined in terms of entropy.

The earth is not a blackbody. As to photons, they are energy.

So what prevents a photon from going from a colder body to a warmer body. Does it supposedly cancel out as it does in your failed light bulb experiment?

They are in fact, the smallest measurable bit of energy in the EM field and according to the second sentence in the second law of thermodynamics:
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."
So yes, there is a conflict.

Your outdated definition says that your head is safe from getting hit by a spontaneously falling icicle. It is taking the "letter of the law" of your definition. However, since that definition is not widely applicable to all cases, you must take into account the revised formalism that uses entropy in the definition. Then the falling icicle will follow the 2nd law since it includes potential and kinetic energy that the classical law does not include.

The fact that neither of the bulbs ever get brighter or emit more energy than is coming in from the electric outlet is proof that neither is absorbing energy from the other. Any absorption would necessitate that the bulb would emit more energy than it had coming in which would constitute a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, but you can't have perpetual motion.

So the radiation cancels out as it does in your failed light bulb experiment?

Again, if backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth were happening, infrared astronomy would be impossible. The amount of radiation climate science claims is coming back from the atmosphere would completely overwhelm the very small amount of incoming IR that infrared astronomy relies on. One of the two claims is a lie. Either backradiation does not exist or backradiation does not exist.

Again, IR astronomy is very limited on earth and only works between the absorption bands of green house gasses. That is why IR astronomy is done in high dry areas, from planes, or from space.

"Even at high altitudes, the transparency of the Earth's atmosphere is limited except in infrared windows, or wavelengths where the Earth's atmosphere is transparent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy

Sorry guy, but the second law says what it says. If you don't believe it, that is your choice and if you want to believe that it doesn't mean what it says, that is also your choice but understand that you hold that belief based on something other than hard emprical evidence.

Your choice is not to believe the quantum update, statistical physics, and the entropy definition of Thermodynamics. You are using a very limited and old definition and treating that old definition as though it were a religious commandment that has no further depth than literal words on a piece of paper. Your posts are like a faithful cult member of a religious congregation that worships a false god taught by false prophets and refuses to hear or believe factual evidence outside your bias. You simply don't understand the formal revision of Thermodynamics in terms of entropy or statistics, and cling to an old 1899 idea that catastrophically fails for the very application you are trying to use it for.

 

[palerider]

There is empirical evidence galore.

Actually, there is none but believe as you wish.

The formal definition of the second law involves entropy, and not just heat flow. Statistical Thermodynamics can compute all the above properties, and salvage the catastrophe of the second law in radiative Thermodynamics. Yes, there is a lot of empirical evidence that you apparently don't understand or know about.

Actually, there is none, but again, believe as you wish. By the way, backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object, by definition reduces entropy in direct opposition to even your pseudo statement of the second law. By the way, what idiot led you to believe that the laws of nature were actually laws of systems. The second law, as stated, is in operation in both closed and open systems.

C'mon read a book. IR astronomy is very limited on earth and can only view IR between the absorption bands of water, CO2 and other green house gasses. That is why IR astronomy is best done from space.

Really? According to your wiki link, these are the frequency "windows" through which infrared astronomy is possible (in micrometers): 0.65 to 1.0, 1.1 to 1.4, 1.5 to 1.8, 2.0 to 2.4, 3.0 to 4.0, 4.6 to 5.0, 7.5 to 14.5, 17 to 25, 28 to 40, 330 to 370, 450.

Which of the so called greenouse gasses is not emitting in one of those ranges?

So what prevents a photon from going from a colder body to a warmer body. Does it supposedly cancel out as it does in your failed light bulb experiment?

The laws of nature prevent it. Hell lagboltz, it won't even radiate in the direction of a warmer body. Refer to the second law of thermodynamics. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. It can't radiate in the direction of a warmer body any more than a struck golf ball can go off in some direction other than the one in which it was struck. Refer to poynting vector physics.

Your outdated definition says that your head is safe from getting hit by a spontaneously falling icicle.

A falling icicle is not radiation. Your constant failure at every attempt at a rational analogy suggest that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

So the radiation cancels out as it does in your failed light bulb experiment?

First, the fact that neither bulb gets brighter means that your light bulb example fails. Second, refer to poynting vector physics if you have any interest in the direction in which the EM field is propagating.

Again, IR astronomy is very limited on earth and only works between the absorption bands of green house gasses. That is why IR astronomy is done in high dry areas, from planes, or from space

Again, which so called greenhouse gas is backradiating in a frequency not found within the "windows" listed above?

 

[dogtowner]

Your classical second law does not take into account heat transfer under the influence of external mechanical energy, internal chemical energy, potential energy, etc. The classical law that you love says nothing about the broader picture of these aspects of thermodynamics. The second law must accommodate all these scenarios. That is why it is now defined in terms of entropy.

yes, it does so explicitly

 

[Lagboltz]

Actually, there is none, but again, believe as you wish. By the way, backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object, by definition reduces entropy in direct opposition to even your pseudo statement of the second law. By the way, what idiot led you to believe that the laws of nature were actually laws of systems. The second law, as stated, is in operation in both closed and open systems.

Now it seems you don't understand what empirical evidence means. You also don't understand the major constraints of the second law. Entropy only has meaning in a closed system. Even if the system is the solar system.

Really? According to your wiki link, these are the frequency "windows" through which infrared astronomy is possible (in micrometers): 0.65 to 1.0, 1.1 to 1.4, 1.5 to 1.8, 2.0 to 2.4, 3.0 to 4.0, 4.6 to 5.0, 7.5 to 14.5, 17 to 25, 28 to 40, 330 to 370, 450.
Which of the so called greenouse gasses is not emitting in one of those ranges?

"Most of the infrared light coming to us from the Universe is absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Only in a few narrow wavelength ranges, can infrared light make it through (at least partially) to a ground based infrared telescope."
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/irwindows.html

The laws of nature prevent it. Hell lagboltz, it won't even radiate in the direction of a warmer body. Refer to the second law of thermodynamics. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. It can't radiate in the direction of a warmer body any more than a struck golf ball can go off in some direction other than the one in which it was struck. Refer to poynting vector physics.

There you go, stuck in the ancient 1899 definition of thermodynamics again. Even then you got it wrong. It is HEAT energy that will not flow from a cooler to a warmer body. Photons are not heat energy, but I forgot you don't believe in photons either. Or maybe you believe they have magical powers.

A falling icicle is not radiation. Your constant failure at every attempt at a rational analogy suggest that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That is your irrationality that I was demonstrating. I'm glad you agree it is irrationality. Of course a falling icicle is not radiation. The point is bigger than just radiation, it is about all of thermodynamics. If you don't understand thermodynamics, nobody can't expect you to understand radiative thermodynamics.

First, the fact that neither bulb gets brighter means that your light bulb example fails. Second, refer to poynting vector physics if you have any interest in the direction in which the EM field is propagating.

So you still believe in a dark band between light bulbs of similar wattage. You reject the concept of empirical evidence. You embrace science of 1899. You disagree with experts on astronomy. To me these writings seem like the work of a Troll. Either that, or the information is coming from "Beginning Science for Little Tots".

 

[Lagboltz]

yes, it does so explicitly

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?

 

[palerider]

Now it seems you don't understand what empirical evidence means. You also don't understand the major constraints of the second law. Entropy only has meaning in a closed system. Even if the system is the solar system.

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 fact, however, has nothing to do with the imaginary greenhouse effect you believe in driven by unphysical backradiation from a cool atmosphere to a warm earth.

"Most of the infrared light coming to us from the Universe is absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Only in a few narrow wavelength ranges, can infrared light make it through (at least partially) to a ground based infrared telescope."

Yeah, got that; even before I pointed out that IR astronomy would be impossible if backradiation existed. Again, which frequency are any of the so called greenhouse gasses emitting in that isn't inclued within one of the stated infrared windows?

There you go, stuck in the ancient 1899 definition of thermodynamics again. Even then you got it wrong. It is HEAT energy that will not flow from a cooler to a warmer body. Photons are not heat energy, but I forgot you don't believe in photons either. Or maybe you believe they have magical powers.[/quote}

It is you who is stuck, but I can't quite say where. The second law clearly states that energy won't flow from a cooler body to a warmer body. Again, here is the statement. I don't know why you have so much trouble with it, it is stated clearly in plain english. Perhaps it is that it interferes with your faith system and you simply can't except it.

Again, the second law:

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.

Energy will not flow from a cool object to a warm object either and "photons" are nothing if not bits of energy.

So you still believe in a dark band between light bulbs of similar wattage. You reject the concept of empirical evidence. You embrace science of 1899. You disagree with experts on astronomy. To me these writings seem like the work of a Troll. Either that, or the information is coming from "Beginning Science for Little Tots".

Again, refer to poynting vector physics and have the blinders removed from your eyes.

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

Perhaps you should learn to distinguish between imagination and reality. Perhaps that is where you are stuck. 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.

 

[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?

Geez guy, you really don't read, do you? How many times have I posted the wording of the second law? For your viewing pleasure, I will repeat it again:

"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. "

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. You are living in a world of imagination and somehow have confused what is real with what is imaginary. Your claims of empirical evidence are in fact, claims pointing at mathematical models which have no analogs within the real world.