The world goes Green

[olofscience 422]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

Mostly sun, but yes, "due to internal heat too"

How much? Give percentages, even rough estimates. 80/20? 70/30?

[billvon 2,400]

39 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Second, not all photons act as heat. Photons only act as heat when going from hot to cold. Photons will either warm a colder objects and die, or fail to warm a warmer object and die.

NO photons act as heat.  Photons are emitted from materials for many reasons, including blackbody radiation.  They are sometimes absorbed.  Often this results in their energy being CONVERTED to heat.

Quote

What you call "thermodynamics" is actually just mere rhetoric. 

No, it's actually a very important part of science.  It's why you can fly in comfort in your turbine powered aircraft.  It's why you can get power from a thermal power plant.  And it's why we can survive on this planet.

  Science is a real thing, and it works.

 

 

[gowlerk 1,914]

29 minutes ago, billvon said:

What you call "thermodynamics" is actually just mere rhetoric. 

How can you argue with that gem?

[Zoe Phin 0]

"They are sometimes absorbed.  Often this results in their energy being CONVERTED to heat."

Sometime. Often. So now you agree.

"No, it's actually a very important part of science."

The backradiation heating rhetoric you uncritically repeat is not part of science.

When are photons NOT absorbed and act as heat?

You're getting close, but your programming may kick in to halt you.

"How much? Give percentages, even rough estimates. 80/20? 70/30?"

Enough to cover the so-called greenhouse effect.

[wmw999 2,123]

12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

How can you argue with that gem?

You don't. Remember that saying about wrestling with pigs.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,914]

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

When are photons NOT absorbed and act as heat?

When they bounce off and hit you in the eye.

[Zoe Phin 0]

"How can you argue with that gem?"

You can't. Backradiation heating rhetoric is not thermodynamics.

 

[billvon 2,400]

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"No, it's actually a very important part of science."

The backradiation heating rhetoric you uncritically repeat is not part of science.

You think that heating due to radiation is not part of science?

Again, perhaps take a course or two in science.

Quote

When are photons NOT absorbed and act as heat?

When they pass through a vacuum or sufficiently transparent medium.  When they are reflected.  When they are absorbed and re-radiated as in fluorescence (think black light art) or scattering (that's why the sky is blue, for example.)

Again, science.  If you don't understand the basics you're not going to understand more complex topics like AGW.

[Zoe Phin 0]

"You think that heating due to radiation is not part of science?"

It is, but that's not what you need to prove.

"When they are reflected."

Why would they reflect? What condition would cause reflection?

[billvon 2,400]

9 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"You think that heating due to radiation is not part of science?"

It is, but that's not what you need to prove.

You just said it was not part of science, just a few posts above this one.  Re-read your post.

Quote

Why would they reflect? What condition would cause reflection?

You can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)

[Zoe Phin 0]

Backradiation heating is not part of science. Earth's surface doesn't warm from heating IR-active gases.

I suggest you buy an electric cooler. Suspend it over your head on a clear night. Feel the burn?

Why not?

Solids absorb IR way better than gases.

Do the climate psyence math, you should feel the burn.

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Backradiation heating is not part of science.

Backradiation is the same as radiation.  The object radiating does not know or care which direction it is radiating in.  

Quote

Earth's surface doesn't warm from heating IR-active gases.

We would all be dead if Earth could not warm from the re-radiation of IR.

Quote

Solids absorb IR way better than gases.

Often, no.  A tank full of CO2 will absorb longwave IR at 4500nm far, far better than a solid white surface will.  Here's a good guide to what gases absorb what wavelengths:

[olofscience 422]

Hey ZP you've conveniently forgotten my question, all you needed was a number between 0 and 50.

Anyway, you're now on record, TWICE:

1 hour ago, Zoe Phin said:

Mostly sun, but yes, "due to internal heat too"

So if it's mostly sun, why does Venus suddenly become hot "mostly because of internal heat"?

So earth is hot because of "mostly sun" but venus is hot because of "mostly internal heat"? What makes Venus's internal heat so much hotter than earth? Why the inconsistency?

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

"Backradiation is the same as radiation.  The object radiating does not know or care which direction it is radiating in."

No it's not.

Radiative heat transfer equation says different.

Energy travels ONLY from hot to cold. We call it heat.

There's literally not a single experiment that shows what you need to prove. None. Going back to the 1860s. None.

"We would all be dead if Earth could not warm from the re-radiation of IR."

No we would not.

What happens when you add sun to 0 Celcius?

"A tank full of CO2 will absorb longwave IR at 4500nm far, far better than a solid white surface will."

Wrong. White albedo is only for visible spectrum, i.e. ~400 to ~800 nm. White absorbs just fine at infrared.

Now do the math (not physics) of why you should feel the burn.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

You ask stupid questions. Venus and Earth are different. They have different internal heat.

[olofscience 422]

Just now, Zoe Phin said:

Energy travels ONLY from hot to cold. We call it heat.

Wow, this is really the stupidest thing I've heard so far. You must have gotten brain damage after the module on entropy.

[olofscience 422]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

You ask stupid questions. Venus and Earth are different. They have different internal heat.

That's not a reason. Why would they have different internal heat? They're both rocky planets with similar silicate composition. They're also very close in size and mass.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

"Wow, this is really the stupidest thing I've heard so far."

Why do you think science is stupid?

"That's not a reason. Why would they have different internal heat? They're both rocky planets with similar silicate composition. They're also very close in size and mass."

They have a different history.

Size and mass can never tell you when they were made and with what energy.

[olofscience 422]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

They have a different history.

Venus is literally the closest planet, and we're in the same solar system. How is their history different?

You're answering with very short vague answers, because you have no idea what you're on about.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,400]

10 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"Backradiation is the same as radiation.  The object radiating does not know or care which direction it is radiating in."

No it's not.

Radiative heat transfer equation says different.

Energy travels ONLY from hot to cold. We call it heat.

OK I will ask you again.

A fiber laser is used to cut metal.  It is aimed at a plate of metal that is at room temperature.  The fiber laser's active material (a doped glass rod) operates at about 200C.

Is it your claim that therefore the laser can NEVER heat the metal plate hotter than 200C, because energy transfer operates only from hot to cold?

[olofscience 422]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

OK I will ask you again.

A fiber laser is used to cut metal.  It is aimed at a plate of metal that is at room temperature.  The fiber laser's active material (a doped glass rod) operates at about 200C.

Is it your claim that therefore the laser can NEVER heat the metal plate hotter than 200C, because energy transfer operates only from hot to cold?

I actually have a CO2 laser (120 watts) that I use water to cool, so it definitely stays colder than 100C. I can volunteer this laser for the experiment, provided that we swap the metal plate with a thin sheet of paper, and that ZP stand behind it. If the sheet of paper never reaches 100C, there should be no problem right?

[olofscience 422]

27 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Energy travels ONLY from hot to cold. We call it heat.

There's also this thing called an air conditioner...I'm sure you've heard of it? How does it cool down a car?

Same with fridges and freezers. They actively pump heat OUT of things to make them cold. That would be impossible if energy only flowed from hot to cold.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

Billvon,

I can cut into an aluminum can with a frozen knife. I don't need to raise its temperature to cut.

Do you imagine carbon dioxide as an externally powered laser? Or as a passive object only heated by its environment?

[olofscience 422]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Do you imagine carbon dioxide as an externally powered laser? Or as a passive object only heated by its environment?

So what happens if you fire that laser at a hotter object - like a plasma? Where does the energy go?

You said "the photon dies and fails to warm it up" - where does the photon energy go? It's a violation of conservation laws. You've never answered this question and I asked it a long time ago.

Edit to add: you've never answered my question about how Venus' and Earth's histories are different either. Looks like you're running out of answers.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

What is wrong with you people?

All you have to do is shine some IR from some source onto CO2, Water Vapor, Metal, Wood, whatever, and then demonstrate a rise in temperature at the source.