"Settled Science"??

[PLC1]

Since you are unwilling to repeat your idea of how the greenhouse effect works, perhaps you could provide a link to where you gave the description you claim to have given...I can't find it in our past conversations.

I'm not willing to go searching our past exchanges for it, so this will have to do.

Now, as to the other points you've been ignoring, perhaps you'd like to address those?

 

[Lagboltz]

Howdy Pale; you're back! You must have had a bad weekend because you are in a real foul temper today.

You are the saddest case of anti-science that I have ever seen. Many people fear and question things that they don't understand. You are one of the saddest. I understand that you don't understand modern physics or how modern devices operate. I could give you references, but you have to understand calculus first, and most important you can't understand science if you are so bitterly anti-science.

OK...so show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

Here is a simple experiment for you. Freeze a laser light pen and turn down your house heat. Bring the laser and an ice cube into a cold pitch dark room and shine the laser on the ice cube. Do you see the cube? Be careful you don't burn your eye. Everything is well below the temperature of your retina. So that demonstrates photon energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

That is called faith...not science....or physics.

Not so. Dealing with photons in electromagnetic theory is called science.

Have you ever observed a black streak where two waves cancel each other out? My bet is that you haven't. Such an idiot knee jerk response is the result of very shallow thinking.

Kudos! You are taking a good step forward in recognizing your past shallow thinking about your black streak theory.

Can you say for sure whether light is particle or wave?....or both....how does light work....tell us oh great swami...look into the bowl of animal entrails, or sheep's blood or whatever you use to speak of theory and hypothesis as if it were known fact and tell us of the true nature of light.

My my, you sure do have an archaic way of thinking. Just what sort of old science books are you reading. As I said, I'm only the science messenger. Let me give you a reference that should be easy to understand. If you don't like Wikipedia, go to the references they give that are written by the great masters of physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

 

[dogtowner]

A laser would be a fine example of extetnal work. That beam can go nowhere but where its pointed.

 

[palerider]

I'm not willing to go searching our past exchanges for it, so this will have to do.

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.

When the sun's rays hit the Earth'satmosphere and the surface of the Earth, approximately 70 percent of the energy stays on the planet, absorbed by land, oceans, plants and other things.

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

This absorption-radiation process keeps the Earth in radiative equilibrium: The sun's radiation continually strikes the Earth, warming it; the warm Earth emits some of that radiation back into space, cooling itself. The more solar radiation the Earth absorbs, the more radiation it releases.

Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor -- the car windows. The heat that doesn't make it out through Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet warmer than it is in outer space, because more energy is coming in through the atmosphere than is going out. This is the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warm.

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.[/quote]

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.

Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor -- the car windows.

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:

Yes, it is warmer at lower elevations due to "pressure", specifically, to a thicker atmosphere which more efficiently traps heat. It is basic science, of the sort that I linked to earlier and you totally ignored.

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.

, as to the other points you've been ignoring, perhaps you'd like to address those?

What other points do you think you made?

 

[palerider]

Howdy Pale; you're back! You must have had a bad weekend because you are in a real foul temper today.[/qutoe]

Great weekend...little patience for fools.

are the saddest case of anti-science that I have ever seen. Many people fear and question things that they don't understand. You are one of the saddest. I understand that you don't understand modern physics or how modern devices operate. I could give you references, but you have to understand calculus first, and most important you can't understand science if you are so bitterly anti-science.

Keep up that mental masturbation if it makes you feel good...eventually you will be left with nothing but an empty feeling and a hand full of.....something unpleasant. Still waiting for that observed measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object which is the thing that your whole position rests on....and it obviously rests on nothing otherwise you would have provided that example by now.

is a simple experiment for you. Freeze a laser light pen and turn down your house heat. Bring the laser and an ice cube into a cold pitch dark room and shine the laser on the ice cube. Do you see the cube? Be careful you don't burn your eye. Everything is well below the temperature of your retina. So that demonstrates photon energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

No it doesn't because the laser, no matter how cold you make it will be warmer than the ice cube if for nothing other than its power source.

so. Dealing with photons in electromagnetic theory is called science.

No, talking about them as if you are sure they exist is faith. Acknowledging that we are unsure about the nature of light but are trying to understand is science.

! You are taking a good step forward in recognizing your past shallow thinking about your black streak theory.

Your idiot black streak theory....glad you finally see that it was stupid.

my, you sure do have an archaic way of thinking. Just what sort of old science books are you reading. As I said, I'm only the science messenger. Let me give you a reference that should be easy to understand. If you don't like Wikipedia, go to the references they give that are written by the great masters of physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

And apparently you have no way of thinking...you clearly operate on feeling and faith.

Now about that observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...your whole position rests on it and it doesn't seem that you can find one....not to worry, it has never, in the history of the universe been observed.

 

[palerider]

A laser would be a fine example of extetnal work. That beam can go nowhere but where its pointed.

And not to mention that the laser warmer than the ice cube in the first place. Whatever wattage the laser is producing is greater than the ice cube.

 

[palerider]

If the atmosphere of the earth had no radiatively active gasses, the ability of the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself would be zero. How stupid is it to claim that adding radiatively active gasses lessen the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself?

 

[Lagboltz]

A laser would be a fine example of extetnal work. That beam can go nowhere but where its pointed.

It is a case of energy going from a colder body to a warmer body. It is even more extreme if the photons are detected by a detector at a high temperature rather than just your retina.

 

[Lagboltz]

Great weekend...little patience for fools.

Still in a foul temper I see. You have no patience for modern science either.

Whatever wattage the laser is producing is greater than the ice cube.

Really? Just what is the wattage of an ice cube?

 

[palerider]

Still in a foul temper I see. You have no patience for modern science either.

Really? Just what is the wattage of an ice cube?

Irrelavent....what is the wattage of the laser you are suggesting?

It has become obvious to anyone looking that you are dodging. You believe in a thing you can't show any example of. Faith is what you have, not science.

 

[dogtowner]

It is a case of energy going from a colder body to a warmer body. It is even more extreme if the photons are detected by a detector at a high temperature rather than just your retina.

I gather you have forgotten the 2nd kaw of thermodynamics. Your example prooves nothing.

 

[Lagboltz]

I gather you have forgotten the 2nd kaw of thermodynamics. Your example prooves nothing.

Pale asked "OK...so show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object." So I gave him an example that did just that. He forgot or didn't understand that it would not be possible for heat to move that way unless external work was done. It was a teaching moment to him.

 

[palerider]

Pale asked "OK...so show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object." So I gave him an example that did just that. He forgot or didn't understand that it would not be possible for heat to move that way unless external work was done. It was a teaching moment to him.

I said show me....and what do you provide...another mind experiment...if it had actually been observed, don't you think such a thing would be all over everywhere to prove to us skeptics that the second law is wrong when it says that energy won't move from cool objects to warmer objects?

The fact is that it has never been observed and never will be observed outside of a mathematical model. When you actually get something to show out here in the real world, let me know.

And as far as a "teaching" moment, the only one who might have learned something was you as you had your ass handed to you....do you think your pretend superiority is not blatantly obvious to anyone who happens to be looking. Pretending you are the smartest guy in the room only works if you know enough to not make idiot examples while trying to make a point. You would have appeared much smarter had you stayed out of the conversation or not tried to convince people that know otherwise that energy will move from cooler objects to warmer objects.

The facts, and real world observation don't support your hypothesis.

 

[dogtowner]

Pale asked "OK...so show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object." So I gave him an example that did just that. He forgot or didn't understand that it would not be possible for heat to move that way unless external work was done. It was a teaching moment to him.

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

 

[Lagboltz]

....the second law is wrong when it says that energy won't move from cool objects to warmer objects...

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.