"Settled Science"??

[Lagboltz]

You wsnted to teach hom that the 2nd law is ? That ship has already sailed lag.

I would say that Pale's ship sunk long ago. He still doesn't know the difference between heat and energy, and he still quotes his made up version of the second law.

 

[palerider]

I would say that Pale's ship sunk long ago. He still doesn't know the difference between heat and energy, and he still quotes his made up version of the second law.

Keep feeling superior while looking like a fool. It is you who claims that energy can move from a cooler object to a warmer object while being unable to actually show any example of it happening. I am afraid that you have lost and if you were 1/4 as smart as you think you are, you would quit before you end up looking even worse than you do now...

As to the second law, there is no version which suggests that energy can move from a cooler object to a warmer object and yet, that is what you believe. Faith, not science.

 

[palerider]

That statement is exactly correct. All physicists know that the second law actually states, Heat won't spontaneously move from cool objects to warmer objects.

Heat moving implies energy moving since heat is the result of energy moving. And you are no physicist...and don't show any real indication of having any science background at all. Perhaps you read warmist blogs at the holiday inn express and that is what makes you "feel" that you are so smart.

By the way, "heat moving" is a throwback to the quaint victorian science upon which the AGW hoax is based...back when they thought that heat was actually a thing and not a result.

 

[Lagboltz]

Heat moving implies energy moving since heat is the result of energy moving. And you are no physicist...and don't show any real indication of having any science background at all. Perhaps you read warmist blogs at the holiday inn express and that is what makes you "feel" that you are so smart.

Pale, Pale, Pale. When are you going to understand the difference between heat and energy. Energy comes in all forms: kinetic energy, potential energy, electrical energy, radiation energy, and yes, thermal or heat energy.

Heat is always energy, but energy is NOT always heat. The second law of thermodynamics deals with HEAT as energy. That is what is meant by the "thermo" in "thermodynamics."

 

[palerider]

Pale, Pale, Pale. When are you going to understand the difference between heat and energy. Energy comes in all forms: kinetic energy, potential energy, electrical energy, radiation energy, and yes, thermal or heat energy.

Heat is always energy, but energy is NOT always heat. The second law of thermodynamics deals with HEAT as energy. That is what is meant by the "thermo" in "thermodynamics."

Energy is never heat...and heat is never energy. Heat is the result of the movement of energy. I am afraid that it is you who doesn't understand...have never understood, and as a result, have fallen for the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. Congratulations.

The second law of thermodynamics deals with energy. Heat is the result of energy moving from one object to another. Heat is not a thing...it is a result. Energy will not move from a cool object to a warm object...it can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

You have made the claim that it can....give me an actual observed, measured example.

We both know, and everyone who may be looking at this thread also know that no such example is going to be forthcoming as it has never once, in the history of the universe been observed. It is what you believe, but alas, not what is.

Again, since you failed to understand the first time:

http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Energy-Work-Heat-Temp.html

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what heat is, so let's try and make it real clear: heat is not a thing, heat is a process. Here's the definition: heat is the transfer of energy between two objects due to temperature differences. Notice that the name of the transfer process is heat. What gets transfered is energy. Heat is NOT a substance although it is very convenient to think of it that way. In fact, it used to be thought that heat was a substance.
http://physics.csustan.edu/Marvin/HowThingsWork/Temperature/Temperature.htm

Heat is a transfer of energy, not a substance.
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Class/phy141md/doku.php?id=phy141:lectures:35

The first law is a powerful statement of the conservation of energy, indeed conservation of energy can only be understood once we understand that heat is a transfer of energy.
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/thermo/glossary.shtml

Heat is a transfer of energy that occurs when objects with different temperatures are placed into contact. Heat is a process, not a property of a material.
Historically this phenomenon was attributed to a flow of “heat” from the hotter to the colder object. It has been known for a while that this flow of heat is a transfer of energy....

 

[Lagboltz]

Energy is never heat...and heat is never energy. Heat is the result of the movement of energy. I am afraid that it is you who doesn't understand...have never understood, and as a result, have fallen for the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. Congratulations.

The second law of thermodynamics deals with energy. Heat is the result of energy moving from one object to another. Heat is not a thing...it is a result. Energy will not move from a cool object to a warm object...it can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

You have made the claim that it can....give me an actual observed, measured example.

We both know, and everyone who may be looking at this thread also know that no such example is going to be forthcoming as it has never once, in the history of the universe been observed. It is what you believe, but alas, not what is.

Again, since you failed to understand the first time:

http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Energy-Work-Heat-Temp.html

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what heat is, so let's try and make it real clear: heat is not a thing, heat is a process. Here's the definition: heat is the transfer of energy between two objects due to temperature differences. Notice that the name of the transfer process is heat. What gets transfered is energy. Heat is NOT a substance although it is very convenient to think of it that way. In fact, it used to be thought that heat was a substance.
http://physics.csustan.edu/Marvin/HowThingsWork/Temperature/Temperature.htm

Heat is a transfer of energy, not a substance.
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Class/phy141md/doku.php?id=phy141:lectures:35

The first law is a powerful statement of the conservation of energy, indeed conservation of energy can only be understood once we understand that heat is a transfer of energy.
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/thermo/glossary.shtml

Heat is a transfer of energy that occurs when objects with different temperatures are placed into contact. Heat is a process, not a property of a material.
Historically this phenomenon was attributed to a flow of “heat” from the hotter to the colder object. It has been known for a while that this flow of heat is a transfer of energy....

Your copy and pastes are obvious. They are referring to heat as energy. But you on the other hand think energy is heat.

Let me say it again: heat is energy but energy is not always heat. Read your own posts!

 

[palerider]

Your copy and pastes are obvious. They are referring to heat as energy. But you on the other hand think energy is heat./quote]

So now you have resorted to simply lying about what I have said. That's a sure sign that you have lost. Doesn't the management of this thread have rules concerning that sort of lying? As I have said, heat is the result of the movement of energy. You on the other hand seem to think heat is a thing. Clearly it isn't.

Let me say it again: heat is energy but energy is not always heat. Read your own posts!

Let me point out again that heat is never energy and energy is never heat. Heat is the result of a process. Heat is not a thing.

Again:

http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Energy-Work-Heat-Temp.html

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what heat is, so let's try and make it real clear: heat is not a thing, heat is a process. Here's the definition: heat is the transfer of energy between two objects due to temperature differences. Notice that the name of the transfer process is heat. What gets transfered is energy. Heat is NOT a substance although it is very convenient to think of it that way. In fact, it used to be thought that heat was a substance.

 

[palerider]

So are you, or are you not going to provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. Again, that is the basis for your position. Either you can or you can't give a real world observed example of the thing that you claim happens. All your dancing and dodging is not going to make the question go away and every time I ask and you don't respond by showing an example, your credibility diminishes. you are close to bottoming out.

You claim energy moves from cool objects to warm objects....provide a real world observed measured example.

 

[Lagboltz]

So are you, or are you not going to provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. Again, that is the basis for your position. Either you can or you can't give a real world observed example of the thing that you claim happens. All your dancing and dodging is not going to make the question go away and every time I ask and you don't respond by showing an example, your credibility diminishes. you are close to bottoming out.

You claim energy moves from cool objects to warm objects....provide a real world observed measured example.

Total or net energy always moves from warm to cold objects. Photons can move either way. For example black body radiation is an example of what is called radiation exchange - radiation energy flowing both ways. I sent you references to that. You obviously didn't read them, or if you did, you didn't understand them. Really, I sent you references I thought you could understand. Look I simply can't spoon feed physics to a baby that clenches his teeth and puts his hand over his mouth.

 

[Lagboltz]

Total or net energy always moves from warm to cold objects. Photons can move either way.

Oops, I made a typo. That should have read,
Total or net heat energy always moves from warm to cold objects. Photons can move either way.

 

[palerider]

Total or net energy always moves from warm to cold objects. Photons can move either way.

Yeah, you keep saying that but not only can you not show an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object, you can't prove that photons are anything more than a best guess at why light behaves as it does. You can't bring yourself to admit the truth that we don't in fact know whether photons actually exist as a reality..which again, lands you on the side of faith, not science.

Got anything more real than computer models or your own feeble mind experiments games?

 

[palerider]

Oops, I made a typo. That should have read,
Total or net heat energy always moves from warm to cold objects. Photons can move either way.

Still confused after I gave you references from all those respected physics sources....heat is not a thing...it is not a type of a thing....it is the result of a process. Till you understand the basics, you really aren't ready for prime time.

 

[Lagboltz]

Yeah, you keep saying that but not only can you not show an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...

According to radiation theory , “Two bodies will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.”

According to radiation theory CO2 is a gas that can re-radiate electromagnetic (EM) energy in all directions in it's resonances bands. Of course the the warmer earth is radiating even more EM energy that would be captured and re-radiated by the CO2. Thus, the net exchange of heat energy is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

This is the question that you have not answered: What EM mechanism of the second law do you think would prevent CO2 from radiating any EM energy at all to the warmer earth since the CO2 radiation is isotropic?

 

[PLC1]

That is fine if it reflects how you believe the mechanics of the greenhouse effect operate.

So lets look at your link. Right off the bat, they say that 70% of incoming sunlight reaches the surface of the earth.



Then they go on to describe the hypothetical mechanics of the hypothetical greenhouse effect:



So that is the greenhouse effect, and that is how you intend to explain the temperature on venus. It would seem that for the greenhouse effect to work, the planet must absorb incoming radiation from the sun...

Your other link claiming that Venus was the unfortunate victim of a runaway greenhouse effect finds itself on the wrong side of science as soon as they made that claim. The greenhouse effect hypothesis claims that incoming energy from the sun is absorbed by the surface and then emitted back into the atmosphere. On Venus, almost no sunlight ever reaches the surface of the planet.

Here, from Geogia Tech...a discussion on powering equipment on the surface of venus.

[clip]
Solar Power is a common technology used when designing a power system for an extraterrestrial environment. There are two ways you can harvest energy from the sun and utilize it on the surface of Venus. The first way is by populating the lander with solar panels. However, because of the dense atmosphere on Venus, little sunlight reaches the surface. The light level is roughly equivalent to the illumination during a rainy day on Earth [1].Therefore, the amount of area needed to produce the amount of power required makes this design unrealistic.

So at high noon on venus, it is never brighter than here on earth on a rainy day...and according to Georgia Tech, solar energy is not a viable option for powering equipment on Venus. That sort of puts a crimp in a greenhouse effect as you described it. There isn't enough sunlight striking the surface of the planet to cause the sort of heat one finds on venus. Then your greenhouse effect link goes on to say that the atmosphere acts like a car window.



The windows in a car, or greenhouse make the interior warm because they block convection and conduction to the outside. Are you going to try and tell me that CO2 blocks convection and conduction? That particular statement is pure malarky. Secondly, they claim that energy is "reflected" back to the surface. In the first place, CO2 has no power to "reflect" anything. It absorbs and emits and even that in a very narrow wavelength that is overwhelmed by water vapor. Secondly, energy won't move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. Don't believe me, just ask the second law of thermodynamics. Energy won't move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth).

In addition, regarding pressure and temperature...you said:




There is no heat trapping. Are you aware of the ideal gas laws? PV=nRT=NkT? Where P=absolute pressure, V=absolute volume, n=the number of moles of a gas, R=universal gas constant, n=number of molecules, k=the Boltzman constant?

It tells you that if you put pressure on a gas, even if you do it in complete darkness, the temperature will increase. It has nothing to do with "trapping" heat. The pressure puts the molecules in closer proximity and their increased collisions create the heat. I repeat, there is no trapping. Again, the temperature at the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus is 33K warmer than the temperature at the bottom of the troposphere on earth even though Uranus is 30x further away from the sun than earth and the atmosphere there is almost entirely composed of helium and hydrogen. It is warmer there at the bottom of the troposphere...on the coldest planet in the solar system than it is here on earth because of pressure...not heat trapping, not a greenhouse effect, not anything but pressure.

Likewise on Venus. There is no greenhouse effect as your link and by default, you have described because hardly any light actually reaches the surface of the planet...a weak, watery daylight at its brightest. Venus is hot because the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than it is here on earth....go visit the gas giants...there are incredibly hot temperatures down in those atmospheres because of pressure, not because they are trapping heat. From those planets, the sun looks like a bright star...not the flaming ball we see and yet, temperatures down in the atmospheres are very hot. Pressure, not heat trapping.

Look at the various planets with atmospheres....At a level in the atmosphere where the pressure equals 1 bar, or pressure equal to that on the surface of the earth the mean temperatures in F are as follows:

Venus = 100
Earth = 68
Jupiter = 53
Saturn = 50
Uranus = 23
Neptune = 17

But when you look at the incoming solar radiation:

Venus = 2614 watts per square meter
Earth= 1368 watts per square meter
Jupiter = 50.5 watts per square meter
Saturn = 14.9 watts per square meter
Uranus = 3.71 watts per square meter
Neptune = 1.51 per square meter

The greenhouse hypothesis simply is not supported by these numbers. If you account for the differences in the incoming solar radiation, these planets have nearly the same temperature in their atmospheres where the atmospheric pressure equals 1 bar. Even way out on Uranus and Neptune where there is damned near no energy incoming from the sun the temperatures (accounting for the difference in incoming solar energy) are almost the same as on earth.

The greenhouse hypothesis doesn't predict anything like this and in fact, only seems to work on earth because it is an ad hoc construct only meant to estimate earth's temperature....if it were actual science based on actual physics, it could accurately predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere when in fact, it can predict the temperature of none of the planets in the solar system with atmospheres.

The ideal gas laws, combined with adjustments for incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system with atmospheres because they are actual science, not pseudo science for the purpose of promoting a hoax.



What other points do you think you made?[/quote]

Since less sunlight reaches the surface when the atmosphere is more dense, one would expect the high mountains to be warmer than the lowlands as the atmosphere is less dense there.

But, of course, you've uncovered scientific principles that have somehow escaped all of the scientific organizations in the world. Congratulations!

 

[palerider]

According to radiation theory , “Two bodies will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.”

According to radiation theory CO2 is a gas that can re-radiate electromagnetic (EM) energy in all directions in it's resonances bands. Of course the the warmer earth is radiating even more EM energy that would be captured and re-radiated by the CO2. Thus, the net exchange of heat energy is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

This is the question that you have not answered: What EM mechanism of the second law do you think would prevent CO2 from radiating any EM energy at all to the warmer earth since the CO2 radiation is isotropic?

The second law says that energy will not move from a cooler object to a warmer object. While it is possible for a CO2 molecule to radiate in any direction, what makes you think it will radiate in the direction of a warmer object.

Electricity can flow in most directions....it will not flow "upstream to a more powerful source of electricity however. Why doesn't it? Does it "know" that the source at the other end is greater or does it simply follow the laws of physics and move in the only direction it can? Same for energy radiating from a CO2 molecule...it doesn't have to know which direction is cooler....it just radiates in the only direction it can just as electricity moves along a wire in the only direction it can...and water flows in the only direction it can, and dropped objects fall in the only direction they can. The laws of nature tell energy where it must go....and there it goes.