Early Venus is suggested to have been much colder – and thus habitable – due to higher concentrations of CO2…because CO2 drives cooling in most of the Venus atmosphere (stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere).
Scientists have for decades agreed it is “well recognized” that CO2 molecules radiatively cool the atmospheres of planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus (Sharma and Wintersteiner, 1990) in the 15 μm band starting from 12 km above the surface on up.
Image Source: Sharma and Wintersteiner, 1990
For rocky planets like Venus “adding CO2 obviously cools the whole free atmosphere” (Wang and Yang, 2022).
“As the CO2 concentration is increased, the radiative cooling effect becomes stronger.”
Image Source: Wang and Yang, 2022
Again, CO2 is said to significantly cool down most of the Venus atmosphere. So when CO2 concentrations were allegedly much higher than now Venus is suggested to have been a habitable planet (Krissansen-Totten et al., 2021).
“Habitable past scenarios are favored if CO2-rich atmospheres radiatively cool the mesosphere.”
Scientists surmise the stratosphere of Venus would be at least 44 K hotter if it had an Earth-like N2-O2-dominated atmosphere and much lower CO2 concentrations.
Image Source: Krissansen-Totten et al., 2021
The two predominant reasons why the Venus surface-troposphere is so much hotter than Earth’s surface-troposphere are (1) its closer proximity to the Sun and (2) its 92 times greater atmospheric mass. The higher atmospheric mass modulates the surface temperature as it “increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere” (Chemke and Kaspi, 2017).
“An increase (decrease) in atmospheric mass causes an increase (decrease) in near-surface temperatures” (Chemke et al., 2016).
Image Source: Chemke and Kaspi, 2017
Image Source: Chemke et al., 2016
Contradicting the current paradigm, the presence or absence of CO2 or other greenhouse gases in the Venus atmosphere is not a requirement for the planet’s surface-troposphere heat retention. Put another way, backradiation from “greenhouse gas heating…can be discounted” as a surface-troposphere temperature determinant for Venus (Mulholland et al., 2020).
[…] New Studies Claim The More CO2 In The Venus Atmosphere The Colder It Gets […]
That’d be because the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (polyatomic radiative molecules) are actually net radiative atmospheric coolants at prevalent Earth temperatures, and it is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the ‘greenhouse gases’ (see below)… the climastrologists have flipped reality, flipped causality, on its head to bolster their CAGW scam… because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality. One needn’t invent new physics to explain their lie, and most people can’t tell the difference between reality and flipped causality because they’re not technically inclined. They cannot ascertain that the climastrologists’ claims violate 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, the Entropy Maximization Principle and Stefan’s Law, amongst many other physical laws.
They can only get away with this sophistry because they claim that radiative energy transfer is the predominant mode of energy transfer on this planet.
That’s another of their half-truths hiding the bigger lie of CAGW.
It is true that the only way our planet, for this instance considered to be a system (and space an infinite heat sink), can remove energy from the system is via radiative emission to space… but they neglect the fact that conduction (air atoms and molecules contacting the surface to pick up energy), evaporation and convection remove ~76.2% of all surface energy, that energy being convectively transited to the upper atmosphere, where it is then radiatively emitted, with the vast majority of it being rejected to space due to the mean free path length / air density / altitude relation.
That is why, for example, water vapor acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause…
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
That’s why CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except right at the tropopause (where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
That’s from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png
That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Think about how an actual greenhouse works… by hindering convection.
Now, in an atmosphere consisting solely of monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, they could gain energy via conduction by contacting the surface (just as the polyatomic radiative molecules can do), they could convect (just as the polyatomic radiative molecules can do), but once in the upper atmosphere they could not as effectively radiatively emit (because monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit nor absorb IR; and because the homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision)… the upper atmosphere would warm, which would lend less buoyancy to parcels of air attempting to convect, and that would hinder convection.
And that’s how an actual greenhouse works… by hindering convection. Thus it is the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) which are the actual ‘greenhouse gases’, and the radiative polyatomics (H2O, CO2) are net atmospheric radiative coolants.
Greenhouses where plants are grown
have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
That is a red herring argument.
Your unique climate science is bizarre.
It is imaginary.
You’re right… the climastrologists have hijacked the ‘greenhouse effect’ term to push their sophistry, attempting to conflate it with the tropospheric auto-compressional lapse rate.
No, it’s not ‘bizarre’ nor is it ‘imaginary’, and I can prove it.
The S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Note that the climastrologists misuse the S-B equation by treating real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects (just with ε < 1… sometimes… the Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Balance graphic treats a real-world graybody planet exactly as though it's an idealized blackbody (emission to 0 K, ε =1)), which inflates radiant exitance of all objects (because it's calculated for emission to 0 K), necessitating that they carry those incorrect values through the calculation and cancel them on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly fictive "cooler to warmer energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow.
That’s not how the S-B equation is meant to be used. You’ll note the S-B equation subtracts the cooler object temperature from the warmer object temperature… and temperature is a measure of energy density (not energy flow), equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
It is the energy density differential (the energy density gradient) between warmer and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance.
But most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient, energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient.
That’s 2LoT, in a nutshell.
So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.”
Then show them dimensional analysis:
Force: [M1 L1 T-2]
Area: [M0 L2 T0]
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Pressure is the result of Force / Area. That Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient. Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of energy, that impetus is an energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
Volume: [M0 L3 T0]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length.
Highlight the fact that Pressure and Energy Density have the same units (bolded above).
Also highlight the fact that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same units (bolded above).
So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density is pressure, an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
And since a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.imgur.com/kS20QG1.png
… ‘backradiation’ can do nothing to warm the surface because energy cannot spontaneously flow from lower to higher energy density, and thus CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam perpetrated to obtain multiple billions of dollars in funding for trough-grubbing line-toeing ‘scientists’ and to push a Marxist One World Government “Build Back Better” agenda.
Do remember that photons, each a quantum of energy, are considered the force-carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction.
Going back to dimensional analysis:
We start with Energy: Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] –
And we subtract Force: Force: [M1 L1 T-2] –
Over Distance: Distance: [M0 L1 T0] = [M0 L0 T0]
We are left with nothing on the ‘transmitting’ end… [M0 L0 T0]. In other words, that Energy is used to apply a Force over a Distance.
That Force applied over a Distance gives us (on the ‘receiving’ end):
Force: [M1 L1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
You’ll note that Energy and Work have the same units:
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
For those who want to put it in terms of Momentum:
Momentum: [M1 L1 T−1]
Velocity: [M0 L1 T-1]
Work: [M1 L2 T−2]
That means Work = Force * Length = Momentum * Velocity
There’s a reason for that. Free Energy is defined as that energy capable of performing work. If no work can be done, no energy can flow, which is why thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as a quiescent state. And no work can be done at thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no impetus for energy to flow.
This is reflected in the equation for Helmholtz Free Energy (represented here as a single object and its environment):
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy (J)
U = internal energy (J)
T = absolute temp (K)
S = system final entropy (J K-1)
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment (J)
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Of course, if we were talking about a system with only two objects with the same physical parameters and nothing else, we could represent the Helmholtz Free Energy as: F = U1 – U2
Which is better represented as internal energy over volume to get energy density (since internal energy is an extensive property), converting the calculation to that of an intensive property and thus allowing us to compare dissimilar-sized objects: F = U1/V1 – U2/V2
And that’s exactly what the S-B equation does. Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (Stefan’s Constant). Remember that I wrote above:
∴ q = (ε c (eh – ec)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
One can see that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object because Free Energy is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
If the climastrologists were bleating that water could spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient (ie: uphill), they'd rightly be laughed off the internet. The more intelligent among us understand that their CAGW blather is another form of that claim… they claim that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. They should rightfully be laughed off the internet as the charlatans and fools that they are.
Greenhouse gases impede cooling.
They form a partial barrier between earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of outer space. Mu estimate, based on 25 years of climate science reading, is that 99.9% of the world’s scientists would agree with those two statements, including almost all climate “skeptic” scientists.
You are lost in “outer space: with alt-science claptrap. I hope you recover at some time in the future. It’s you against AN ESTIMATED 99.9% of the scientists in the world. Until you recover, you will be counterproductive in the effort to refute CAGW climate scaremongering. There is a little science to support CAGW predictions — not much. But that does not mean all science supporting AGW is wrong. 100% of all Climate Howler science is not wrong. In your mind, 100% of consensus climate science is wrong. Not 95%. Not 99%. But 100% wrong. You are deluded.
Your denials of scientific reality, which lead you and your ilk to violations of 2LoT, Stefan’s Law, the Principle of Entropy Maximization, Brewster’s Law, etc., and which cause you to cling to ancient and long-debunked theories such as Prevost’s Theory of Exchanges and Prevost’s Principle (which are predicated upon the long-debunked Caloric Theory), is a personal failing on your part, Richard.
The intelligent know that you and your ilk are akin to a street corner crazy screaming at the sane.
You and your ilk have had free rein until now because most people can’t discern between your bafflegab and scientific reality… we’re creating analogizations so people can understand that you loons are equivalent to someone claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill.
CAGW is finished. Deal with it.
To the comment that said “CAGW is finished. Deal with it.”
CAGW can not be “finished”
It never existed in the first place
it is imaginary
Unfortunatey, the CAGW belief is FAR from being finished.
I deal with that sad delusion every day of the year by posting good anti-CAGW and anti-Nut Zero articles, by various authors, on MY CLIMATE SCIENCE AND ENERGY BLOG, WHICH HAS HAD OVER 330,000 PAGE VIEWS SO FAR.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
MEANWHILE, THERE ARE LOY’S OF CAGW EBELIEVERS IN THE WORLD
— I’M DOING WHAT i CAN TO RE-EDUCATE THEM
I always wanted to be part of an “ilk”
Oh, I’m well aware of who you are, Richard… I drop-kicked you all over CFACT, remember?
https://i.imgur.com/qvRKKIS.png
An engine is cooled by air(incl. GHGs) which absorb the heat from the radiator or the surface of the cylinder. Heat absorption in air molecules is what cools an engine. In that case GHGs doesn´t provide a barrier, it´s the opposite.
Do you mean that cold air has opposite effect on the surface? Does the cold atmosphere have opposite effect on the surface compared to hot objects ON the surface? That´s insanity.
Cold air is not a barrier for heat, it´s a heat sink. The surface dumps its heat into the heat sink of the atmosphere and the atmosphere dumps its heat into the infinite heat sink of space. The surface is cooled by the atmosphere and the atmosphere is cooled by the space 3K vacuum.
“The intelligent know that you and your ilk are akin to a street corner crazy screaming at the sane.”
Screams the insane lunatic standing on the street corner who doesn’t understand the first thing about thermodynamics.
Bravo! Bravissimo!
The shortest most eloquent correct description of atmospheric reality.
Don’t mind the Greens, they’ll never understand.
Very interesting! The Clough paper seems to say that as CO2 increases relative to water vapor, the surface warms. While both CO2 and Water Vapor are “coolants”, CO2 has a greater affinity for the radiation they can both absorb. It seems CO2 isn’t as good as a coolant. I could be way off base as this is not an area I have any expertise in.
It never made any sense to me why CO2 would warm in the Troposphere and cool in the stratosphere.
I never understood from a gas law perspective how a large increase in temperature could arise from the small increase in molecular weight that 100 ppm of CO2 would represent.
The other thing that stands out from the Clough paper (and I’m sure this is common) is the complete isolation of radiative flux studies and convection/advection forces.
For some time, I have understood CO2 was a cooling gas by, among other things, radiating at ~ 15 μm. It’s gratifying to have better qualified company than I am comment on it.
That makes two people who have no idea what they are talking about
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as proved in the late 1800s
Adding greenhouse gases should to the troposphere impede Earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown amount, that so far appears to have been completely harmless.
That is basic climate science.
Even the Climate Howlers get that right.
So do almost all “skeptic” scientists.
You are involved with Twilight Zone non-science.
Contradicting at least 99.9% of the world’s scientists
(my estimate, based on 25 years of climate science reading)
Sorry, but I’m betting on the scientists, not you.
Arrhenius completely discounted convection, advection, specific heat capacity and latent heat of vaporization (which transit ~76.2% of all energy away from the planet’s surface) in formulating his incorrect radiative CO2-warming hypothesis upon which hangs the entire modern CAGW charade; and his experiments used 9.7 µm radiation (while CO2 absorbs mainly at 14.98352 µm) and he over-estimated the absorption coefficient of CO2 by 253%, forcing him to later revise his estimate (which was still wrong) of temperature forcing from CO2.
It’s been known for quite some time that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except right at the tropopause (where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
The image above is from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png
That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.
It’s also been known for quite some time that water vapor acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause:
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
In short, the climastrologists have flipped reality on its head to create a lie to fool the gullible… because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality… one needn’t invent new physics to explain their lie, and most people can’t tell the difference between reality and flipped causality because they’re not technically inclined enough to understand that the climastrologist blather demonstrably violates 2LoT, Stefan’s Law, the Entropy Maximization Principle and a whole host of other physical laws.
You’re just a climate denier, Richard. LOL
It is obvious why the Climate Howlers are so successful. There are too many people like you who literally deny 100% of consensus climate science, You are a lost cause in the effort to refute climate scaremongering. It is impossible to argue climate science with a science denier like yourself. I hope you recover someday and help us refute te CAGW predictions. CO2 is increasing rapidly and there is lots of global warming since 1975. It’s not CAGW, but actual climate change since 1975 helps the Climate Howlers predict CAGW in the future. They will not be stopped by science deniers who claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas AND MORE GREENHOUSE GASES CAN NOT IMPEDE EARTH’S ABILITY TO COOL ITSELF. We can’t win debates with science fiction.
You can’t win them, because you are on the side of fiction.
As soon as you blasted the 99% into the blog, it was obvious, that you are one of the unscientific consensus side.
You now make a statement of 100% without even posting an argument that would disprove at least one point of LOL.
You know why you are shouting? Because you lost the debate. You never tried to win it in the first place? And you are too angry to throw your thought ballast over board.
Nobody has shown that co2/GHGs can warm anything. Arrhenius didn´t even do experiments with co2, he just made up a flawed hypothesis about the atmosphere. Tyndall did experiments. Look at Tyndall´s experiments, what did he actually show?
He had a tube with a heat source at one end and a sensor at the other end. He filled the tube with gas and observed how much radiation got through the tube. To translate that to a working greenhouse effect, when filling the tube with gas the heat source should get hotter. Because the heat source in his experiment is analogous to the Earth surface. But of course the heat source didn´t get hotter. He only showed how different gases REDUCE the amount of heat. To have GHGs warming a body, you need an INCREASE of heat. There are no experiments showing that GHGs can increase temperature of anything, only that they absorb heat. Just like ice absorbs a lot of heat, but ice doesn´t warm anything warmer than itself.
Heat absorption is how things are cooled. If you stick each hand in a bucket, one with ice and one with lukewarm water, which bucket absorbs more heat? The ice bucket absorbs lots more heat and that´s why it cools your hand more. Same thing with an air cooled engine. Cold air absorbs the heat from the flanges on the cylinder, the cooler the air, the more heat absorbed, the more cooling of the engine. And a water cooled engine is an even better analogy for earth, since it has circulating water cooling just like Earth has in the oceans. The cooler the water, the more heat is absorbed, the better the cooling.
If the atmosphere cools an engine by heat absorption, then why would the atmosphere have the opposite effect on the Earth surface? It´s insane. How can the GH-hypothesis be the exact opposite to proven and applied physics? The same principle we use to cool engines is used in the GH-hypothesis to warm a planet.
It doesn´t get any more stupid.
Here are the definitions of heat and energy, as you can see no heat OR energy can be transferred from cold air to hot surface.
“heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. If two bodies at different temperatures are brought together, energy is transferred—i.e., heat flows—from the hotter body to the colder.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
“energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/energy
So, heat is defined as the energy in transfer from high to low temperature, and energy is defined as the work and/or heat in transfer.
Unless the GH-hypothesis claims that the atmosphere warms the surface by doing work, there is no way for it to transfer energy to the surface. The atmosphere does not have the properties to fulfill the definition for heat or energy.
The climate loons necessarily claim that energy and work are not related. I can’t tell you how many (including climastrologists) who’ve said energy transfer has nothing to do with work, that energy can flow without work being done (until I point out that would imply that work can be done without energy having to flow… they tend to go silent after that).
Think about it this way… photons (each a quantum of energy, the magnetic and electric fields oscillating in quadrature about a common axis, a circle extended into a spiral by dint of the photon’s movement through space-time) are considered the FORCE-carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction.
Going back to dimensional analysis:
We start with Energy:
[M1 L2 T−2] –
And we subtract Force:
[M1 L1 T-2] –
Over Distance:
[M0 L1 T0] =
[M0 L0 T0]
We are left with nothing on the ‘transmitting’ end… [M0 L0 T0].
In other words, that Energy is used to apply a Force over a Distance. That Force applied over a Distance gives us (on the ‘receiving’ end):
Force: [M1 L1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
You’ll note that Energy and Work have the same units:
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
For those who want to put it in terms of Momentum:
Momentum: [M1 L1 T−1]
Velocity: [M0 L1 T-1]
Work: [M1 L2 T−2]
That means Work = Force * Length = Momentum * Velocity
There’s a reason for that. Free Energy is defined as that energy capable of performing work. One can apply a force in one direction, and if an equal and opposing force is applied, no work is done and thus no energy has flowed, classically-speaking.
This is reflected in the equation for Helmholtz Free Energy (represented here as a single object and its environment):
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy (J)
U = internal energy (J)T = absolute temp (K)
S = system final entropy (J K-1)
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment (J)
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Of course, if we were talking about a system with only two objects with the same physical parameters and nothing else, we could represent the Helmholtz Free Energy as: F = U1 – U2
Which is better represented as internal energy over volume to get energy density (since internal energy is an extensive property), converting the calculation to that of an intensive property and thus allowing us to compare dissimilar-sized objects: F = U1/V1 – U2/V2 = e1 – e2
And that’s exactly what the S-B equation does. Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (Stefan’s Constant). Remember that I wrote above:
∴ q = (ε c (eh – ec)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the energy density (usually in the form of temperature, but one can also use energy density directly) of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
One can see that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object because Free Energy is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
But you'll note the climastrologists misuse the S-B equation, subtracting a wholly-fictive 'cooler to warmer' energy FLOW from the real (but too high because it's calculated for emission to 0 K) 'warmer to cooler' energy FLOW.
In effect, doing it the proper way is the same as calculating the work done when two forces are acting upon an object… if those forces (remember that photons are the force-carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction) are equal, no work can be done, thus no energy can flow, thus no heat.
'Heat' is definitionally energy in motion, an energy flux. That is it, that is all. So we need to be very careful to only use the word 'heat' when speaking of energy flowing, and to use 'energy' or 'energy density' otherwise. 'Heat' isn't something an object contains, it is an action, the movement of energy from one object to another. You'll note that 'heat' does not pertain to energy movement internal to a singular object, only between two or more objects. You'll also note that 'heat' is not the 'net energy flow' as the warmists claim (so they can claim that energy flows cooler-to-warmer), it is ANY energy flow.
To beat CAGW, we need to tighten our usage of definitions, as it is a bastardization of those definitions which underlie CAGW.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not “warm: anything.
They don’t add heat.
They impede Earth’s ability to cool itself.
The planet ends up warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of greenhouse gases.
Climate Science 101
Richard Greene wrote:
“Climate Science 101”
That’s the problem, Richard. You’ve bought into the warmist talking points which they use to advance their leftist agenda, and you’re still stuck on “Climate Science 101” when “Climate Science” as you and the leftists espouse it isn’t scientific in any way whatsoever.
Hewing to the fundamental physical laws shows this to be true. You’re just attempting to sway people to the warmist talking points because that herds them away from the fundamental physical laws and thus bolsters the leftists. You’re a Judas goat. Stop leading people astray. No one is buying it.
“Oh, I’m well aware of who you are, Richard… I drop-kicked you all over CFACT, remember?”
You pontificated nonsensical alt-science, contradicting perhaps 99.9% of scientists on the planet, using a moniker, stated with undeserved confidence, and are a legend in your own mind. You drop kicked yourself and don’t realize it.
I promulgates scientific fact which you found yourself utterly unable to refute. You descended into ad hominems and all-CAPS ranting, then disappeared, Richard.
And you’re still doing it… descending into ad hominems, ranting in all-CAPS and espousing consensus ‘science’ in your “99.9% of scientists” lie.
No one is buying your drivel, Richard. Especially after they read what I write, which strictly hews to the fundamental physical laws and correlates to empirical observation of physical phenomena.
Of course, that’s WHY you descended into ad hominems, all-CAPS ranting, then disappeared. LOL
Richard is right, Kooks is wrong.
Nearly 1200 scientists and climatologists have stated that there is no evidence of a “climate catastrophe”, either occurring or impending.
Now, let’s contrast that to your “99.9%” blather, which you’ve inflated from the prior “97% consensus” blather by the climastrologists (which they arrived at by throwing out all studies except those which they thought expressed an opinion that warming was man-made)… out of the remaining studies, they claim 97% were CAGW… but if those thrown-out studies are kept in the calculation as the base, it’s something on the order of ~0.4% who are on your side.
And even then, there were climatologists who demanded that their studies be removed from the ‘CAGW supportive’ roster because they did nothing of the sort… Cook refused, and was threatened with lawsuits before he removed them… so it’s even lower than ~0.4%.
You only see “99.9%” because you only read what you want to hear in your little echo chamber and reject the rest, no matter how grounded in scientific fact they are. No one is buying that “97% consensus” lie anymore, and they’ll certainly not buy your “99.9%” either.
99.9% is my estimate of the percentage of scientists in the world who agree that there is a greenhouse effect and that more CO2 in the atmosphere should impeded Earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown amount.
The 99.9% has nothing to do with CAGW or the 97% claims.
The 99.9% has nothing to do with IPCC predictions of future global warming much faster than in the past.
The 99.9% only refers to the most basic science behind AGW, and does not even consider the AOUNT OF AGW
All of the 97% surveys are bogus — I have written ARTICLES CITICIZING THEM in past years.
IN 25 YEARS OF CLIMATE CIENCE READING, i HAVE ONLY READ ONE AUTHOR WHO CLAIMED VERY LITTLE OF THE CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE WAS DERIVED FROM HUMAN SOURCES.
HE CLAIMS ONLY 5%, WHEN THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS ABOUT 33%. His name is Berry, and he is a crackpot. I have heard of another crackpot scientist named Salby who has similar beliefs.
My climate science reading is almost entirely articles and studies by “skeptical” authors, so is heavily biased toward discovering unusual non-consensus beliefs.
Yet I have found that no reputable “skeptic” climate scientist, from Lindzen, to Spencer, to Happer, who denies the greenhouse effect.
My “side”, in case you are interested:
AGW is real but harmless
CAGW is imaginary
THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION THAT SPECIALIZES IN JUNK SCIENCE
I support much higher levels of CO2 in the tropospher to improve the growth of C3 photosynthesis plants USED FOR FOOD.
If MORE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 causes more global warming I assume it will be similar TO THE WARMING SINCE 1975:
MAINLY IN COLDER CLIMATES (higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere)
MAINLY IN THE COLDEST SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR
MAINLY AT NIGHT (TMIN)
HERE IN MICHIGAN USA, WE LOVE GLOBAL WARMING AND WANT A LOT MORE!
I imagine most people in England would feel the same way
Hope I didn’t “blather” too much for you in this comment.
Save your insults for the Climate Howlers !
Red herring argument
They claim there is no CAGW
TRhey do not claim there is no AGW
The Oregon Petition in the late 1990s had far more signatures, yet had no effect. 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs: http://www.petitionproject.org/
1000 signatures now, after 22 more years of CAGW scaremongering propaganda since the late 1990s, will have no effect. I may agree with Clintel on CAGW, but CAGW is a belief based on faith — a belief not created with facts, data and logic can not be refuted with facts, data and logic. It is a secular religion.
We have 47 years of actual mild and harmless global warming since 1975.
Probably some caused by AGW, amount unknown, but also harmless.
We have over 50 years of wrong predictions of CAGW
We have almost 8 billion witnesses to some or all of the past 47 years
of mild harmless global warming.
Yet most of them still believe in the coming climate crisis (CAGW)
How can 1000 signatures change that CAGW fantasy?
I wish they could.
And so…? Nitrogen and oxygen are greenhouse gases, as indicated in this 2012 paper.
Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases, because they are transparent to infrared light. These molecules are invisible because when you stretch one, it doesn’t change the electric field.
The paper, if it says otherwise, is worthless
The homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) have a net-zero magnetic dipole and thus cannot absorb (nor emit) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision… and it is regularly perturbed via collision. As altitude increases, air density exponentially decreases, and thus collisional perturbation exponentially decreases.
The amount of IR emitted by N2 is comparable to the amount emitted by CO2, just at different wavelengths because different molecular species have different vibrational mode quantum state excitation energy levels.
You know just enough to think you know enough to know that you are right, Richard, but not enough to know that your surface-level knowledge is a simplification of reality and is thus incorrect.
In short, educate yourself, Richard.
And yet they apparently don’t. For example, when water vapor – the main greenhouse gas – is added to the surface-troposphere in the form of irrigation, the surface troposphere gets cooler, not warmer. This is per real-world observations.
For example, here are some studies, Krishnankutty Abika and Mishra, 2021, Yang et al., 2020, that show water vapor enhances cooling in the lower troposphere.
That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).
The effective emission height is ~5.105 km. That also happens to be where atmospheric pressure is 1/2 that at sea level, which isn’t a coincidence.
7 – 13 µm: >280 K (near-surface)
>13 – 17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere)
The emission profile is equivalent to a BB with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.
The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K. That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, it’s the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate alarmists have conflated the two.
Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), not increase it (dry ALR: ~9.81 K / km; humid ALR: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and/or latent heat capacity convectively transiting more energy (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), thus attempting to reduce temperature differential with altitude, while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it… they increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink… they are coolants.
9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K (dry adiabatic lapse rate, due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.
Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (CO2) contribute to cooling, to a lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface.
Also remember: the atmosphere is stable as long as actual lapse rate is less than ALR… and a greater concentration of polyatomic molecules reduces ALR… thus convection increases.
That’s kind of why, after all, CO2 isn’t used as a filler gas in double-pane windows… if it was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, it’d be used as such. It’s not. Low DOF, low specific heat capacity monoatomics generally are.
One can analogize that dual-pane window to the Earth / atmosphere / space system… turn the window horizontally, consider the bottom pane to be the planet’s surface, the filler gas to be the atmosphere, and the upper pane the atmosphere/space interface.
Filling the space with CO2 (or H2O vapor, or any radiative polyatomic high-DOF molecule) increases convective energy transfer from bottom to top pane. Filling the space with a low-Degree Of Freedom monoatomic such as Ar drastically reduces convective energy transfer from bottom to top pane, while preventing the filler gas from emitting (because monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot absorb or emit IR).
As I state above, it is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse gases’.
It is the polyatomic radiative molecules which are the only molecules in our atmosphere which can shed energy to space to cool the system known as ‘Earth’, and the only way that system can cool is via radiative emission to space.
The climastrologists are, yet again, diametrically opposite to reality. They assume all energy removed from the surface is via radiative emission… but ~76.2% of surface energy is removed via conduction (atoms and molecules in the atmosphere contacting the surface), convection and evaporation.
Mheh… some forums choke on the greater than and lesser than symbols.
Should be:
7 – 13 µm: greater than 280 K (near-surface)
greater than 13 – less than or equal to 17 µm: ~220 K (near the tropopause)
greater than 17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere)
Increasing CO2 levels and increasing water vapor as the troposphere warms have both correlated with global warming since 1975. No study will change that fact. I am beginning to believe you automatically reject 100% of consensus climate science. It’s you against the world. And you are losing. getting a study published does not automatically create truth.
Richard, liken yourself to living inside the evaporator (analogized to the planet’s surface) of a world-sized A/C unit.
Which atoms or molecules are going to move the most energy to the condensor (analogized to the infinite heat sink of space)?
Is it going to be the low-DOF low molar heat capacity monoatomics (Ar), which cannot radiatively emit because they have no vibrational mode quantum states?
Is it going to be the slightly-higher DOF, slightly-higher molar heat capacity homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2), which cannot radiatively emit unless their net-zero magnetic dipoles are perturbed via collision?
Or is it going to be the high-DOF higher molar heat capacity polyatomics which can radiatively emit?
Keep in mind that the only way the planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space.
Why do they use extremely high-DOF, extremely high molar heat capacity polyatomics (CFC, HCFC, HFC) as refrigerants, Richard, rather than low-DOF monoatomics or homonuclear diatomics? Could it be because those high-DOF, high molar heat capacity molecules move more energy in an A/C system?
You essentially live inside what can be considered the evaporator of a world-sized A/C unit. The surface is analogous to the evaporator, the atmosphere is the working fluid, the refrigerant. The infinite heat sink of space is analogous to the condensor. Convection is analogous to the A/C compressor providing the energy to push the working fluid through the system.
Now, in our system, we have non-condensable gases (N2, O2, Ar, CO2, etc.) mixed in with condensable gases (H2O). A real A/C system is evacuated to at least 1000 (the lower the better) micron vacuum before introducing the refrigrant to remove non-condensable gases because those low-DOF low molar heat capacity non-condensable gases reduce the efficiency of moving energy from evaporator to condensor. We have no choice but to live with the non-condensable gases in our atmosphere.
But… if we were, for instance, to remove Ar from the atmosphere, then Ar could no longer dilute the proportion of higher-DOF molecules in any given mole of atmosphere, which would increase the molar heat capacity of any given mole parcel of air, which would convectively transit more energy from surface to upper atmosphere where that energy is radiatively emitted, that energy exiting to space representing a cooling process for the system known as Earth.
Likewise, adding higher-DOF, higher molar heat capacity (and capable of emitting radiation) molecules increases the ability of a mole parcel of the working fluid (the atmosphere) to convectively transit energy from the ‘evaporator’ (the surface) to the upper atmosphere and radiatively emit it to the ‘condenser’ (space).
IOW, you’ve bought into the warmist talking points, which are diametrically opposite to reality because you have no experience in reality by which to anchor your belief system, so you’ll fall for pretty much any BS if it sounds even slightly plausible. That’s the case for a lot of under-educated people. Hence the analogizations to simpler concepts so people like you can grasp reality, however tenuously.
You’ve been shown two such analogizations now, and you’ve failed to grasp them… either your under-education is so profound that you cannot even grasp simple analogies, or you’ve become emotionally invested in the warmist way, and will never abandon it no matter how much mathematical, scientific proof you’re shown that you are wrong.
While batting around the 99.9% and 97% figures, what about the Bell Curve?
Most of the numbers are for the stupid ones. Want to take their word for it? Why not a survey on your street, or local bar or pub?
Nobody has proven that GHGs can warm anything. Tyndall showed how GHGs REDUCE heat by absorbing it, not that GHGs increase heat. He never showed that GHGs warm anything, neither did Arrhenius. There are no experiments that show that GHGs have the ability to warm anything.
The next time I hear a Climate Howler predict an emergency, I will immediately refute his claims with one “study” claiming to understand the climate on Venus. That will change his mind. Another article of little value from Mr. Richard.
To those people whose unique theories appear to contradict an estimated 99.9% of scientists in the world:
Those who believe there is no greenhouse effect.
Those who believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Those who believe more CO2 can not impede Earth’s ability to cool.
And those who believe there is there is no AGW:
Please tell us immediately after you have won a Nobel Prize!
At the moment, you are science deniers, who are counterproductive in the effort to refute CAGW scaremongering. That can not be donw by claiming AGW is impossible.
You are all legends in your own minds.
And nowhere else.
According to satellite data, total greenhouse effect forcing (when including all contributors – CO2, WV, clouds) has been declining since the 1980s, as documented in many published papers and detailed here: https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/08/scientists-the-global-warming-since-1985-cannot-be-attributed-to-co2-forcing/
The concomitant increase in absorbed solar radiation since the 1980s can explain the temperature increase. Are you a “science denier” with regard to these trends, Richard?
CO2 in the troposphere is increasing
Water vapor in the troposphere is increasing
Cloud cover is declining
Solar energy is declining
There has been global warming since 1975,
although not much in the past seven years.
No study can change reality:
— These statements are based are measurements, not computer models
One can oppose CAGW scaremongering without denying AGW, and I hope you learn that someday.
For one example, concerning the mystery of clouds:
“Real-world data from satellites suggests that the modelers’ predictions may already be coming true. Norman Loeb of NASA’s Langley Research Center has shown that a sharp rise in global average temperatures since 2013 has coincided with a decline in cloud cover over the oceans.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming
Scientists: Per satellite observations, solar energy has been increasing since the 1980s.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/22/new-study-a-post-2000-increase-in-absorbed-solar-energy-by-far-the-largest-contribution-to-warming/
Richard Greene calls us “science deniers” as he dismisses decades of satellite observations and re-states his AGW-belief advocacy. Oh the irony.
The increase is so small that it is irrelevant.
About +1 W m-2 on a base of 1,361 W m-2, or 0.001%
Probably less than a reasonable margin of error in the measurements. You remain a science denier.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/23/JCLI-D-21-0165.1.xml
Richard Greene wrote:
“About +1 W m-2 on a base of 1,361 W m-2, or 0.001%”
As CO2 concentration increased, OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) flux increased by ~6 W/m2 over 62 years. The computer climate models predicted it would decrease, thereby warming the atmosphere (their claim that CO2 ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere).
https://i.imgur.com/FLhcY0B.png
https://i.imgur.com/UQJECee.png
The second image above assumes CO2 causes warming, which explains their “it would be the effect if we reduced CO2 from 800 to 280 ppm, everything else being equal” blurb. In reality, it was the effect of increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.
More radiative molecules means more molecules capable of emitting radiation, which means more radiation emitted, which means more radiation emitted out to space, which represents a loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’. This is, by definition, a cooling process.
If you concatenate those two graphs into a single graph (since the first graph extends the time-series beyond what the second graph does), you’ll find that the OLR has actually risen on the order of 7 W/m^2 over ~72 years.
The two decade (and counting) “global warming” hiatus gave us the perfect opportunity to test the CAGW hypothesis as pertains to CO2 ‘trapping heat’ energy in the atmosphere… in the range of OLR measured by satellite, if CO2 was warming the planet there would be a reduction in OLR due to the climate alarmists’ purported ‘trapping’ of energy by CO2, but it would be more than offset by a generally increased brightness temperature at all wavelengths due to the increased global temperature. That OLR has increased as CO2 increased, while at the same time the global temperature has not risen, empirically nullifies the CAGW hypothesis… the result is exactly opposite to what the climate alarmists (and their flawed computer models) claim. Hence the entire CAGW ‘industry’ is built upon a nullus resultarum… making the entirety of the CAGW ‘industry’ an unscientific sham.
“No study can change reality:
— These statements are based are measurements, not computer models” – Richard Greene
…he then provides link to an article on cloud cover, where we read…
“This is not the first time that such scary climate predictions have emerged from modeling analysis of how clouds might change in a warmer world.”
LOL! And sadly it won’t be the last.
When someone says that they have data, I expect them to SHOW ME THE DATA!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
I don’t want computer model output that is dishonestly called “data.”
CERES measurements of downwelling infrared radiation shows an increasing trend. Look them up yourself.
Richard Greene wrote:
“CERES measurements of downwelling infrared radiation shows an increasing trend. Look them up yourself.”
You’re still dodging the question, Richard.
How does a satellite ‘measure’ DOWNWELLING infrared radiation?
It doesn’t. It derives it. That derivation is based upon their misuse of the S-B equation, treating real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects, emitting to 0 K.
That inflates radiant exitance of all measured objects, necessitating that the climastrologists carry that incorrect value through their calculations and subtract it on the back end to get the equation to balance, in effect subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ ENERGY FLOW from the real (but calculated for emission to 0 K and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ ENERGY FLOW.
That’s not how the S-B equation is meant to be used. Temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant. And the S-B equation subtracts the TEMPERATURE (a measure of energy density, not energy flow) of the cooler object from the TEMPERATURE (a measure of energy density, not energy flow) of the warmer object, because the radiant exitance of the warmer object is dependent upon the ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT, which has the same physical units as a pressure gradient.
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy density IS a pressure, and energy density gradient IS a pressure gradient… for energy.
You and the climastrologists’ claiming that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient is the same as if you claimed that water can spontaneously flow uphill, up a pressure gradient.
Once people realize that simple fact, you and your ilk get laughed off the internet.
@R.G.
”In October 2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote his colleagues:
‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate’.”
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming
Yet again R.G. confuses modeling with measurements, hypotheticals with facts.
Deriving hazards ahead, proceed with caution.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pnVSXI3axJA
Who ya gonna believe, warmists or your own lying eyes?
Energy does not and cannot flow from lower to higher energy density gradient without external energy doing work to push that system energy up that gradient… that’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell.
Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
Thus ‘backradiation’ is a fiction, thus CAGW based upon ‘backradiation’ is a fiction.
Let us look at why energy only flows down an energy density gradient, why it will not flow if there is no energy density gradient, and why it will absolutely not flow against an energy density gradient with higher chemical potential than the photon’s.
Take a look at the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
It’s pretty easy to see from the animated .GIF above that at thermodynamic equilibrium, radiant existance of a graybody object is going to be zero. But how and why does this happen?
Remember that idealized blackbody objects have their emissivity and absorptivity pegged to 1 all the time by definition… they maximally emit (and absorb). They emit when greater than 0 K. They are also provable contradictions and impossibilities and thus do not and cannot exist.
But for graybody objects, as two objects approach thermodynamic equilibrium with each other, emissivity and absorptivity of the objects tend toward zero. Graybody objects emit when their temperature is greater than 0 K above their ambient.
Thus, while an idealized blackbody object emits when its temperature is > 0 K, a graybody object emits when its temperature is > 0 K above its ambient. This is plainly evident in the animated graphic above.
The definition of emissivity: The ratio of the total emissive power of a body to the total emissive power of a perfectly black body at that temperature.
The definition of absorptivity: The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power.
Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody object total emissive power to idealized blackbody object total emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.
As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Helmholtz Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Helmholtz Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.
α = absorbed / incident radiant power
ρ = reflected / incident radiant power
τ = transmitted / incident radiant power
α + ρ + τ = 100%
For opaque surfaces τ = 0% ∴ α + ρ = 100%
If α = 0%, 0% + ρ = 100% ∴ ρ = 100% … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.
This coincides with standard cavity theory… applying standard cavity theory outside a cavity, for two graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, no absorption or emission takes place. The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave, with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of the boundary constraints. Nodes being a zero-crossing point (and anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred in or out of the objects. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work. Photon Helmholtz Free Energy is zero, they can do no work. Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the energy density gradient and in the direction of the cooler object.
This is why thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as a quiescent state… no energy flows. If energy did flow at thermodynamic equilibrium (which could only occur if objects emitted when greater than 0 K, as idealized blackbody objects (which do not and cannot exist) do), then entropy would change at thermodynamic equilibrium.
That entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium leaves the warmists (and those like you who buy into the warmist arguments) with no other option than to claim that radiative energy transfer is an idealized reversible process.
Except radiative energy transfer is an entropic, temporal, irreversible process, which destroys the entirety of the warmist (and those like you who buy into the warmist) argument.
All real-world processes are irreversible. Reversible processes are idealizations.
At thermodynamic equilibrium (no energy density gradient), no energy flows, so it most certainly isn’t going to flow against an energy density gradient.
“Energy does not and cannot flow from lower to higher energy density gradient without external energy doing work to push that system energy up that gradient… that’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell.”
-should be-
“Energy does not and cannot flow from lower to higher energy density without external energy doing work to push that system energy up that energy density gradient… that’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell.”
“Energy does not and cannot flow from lower to higher energy density gradient”
Of course it can. A polyatomic gas at low temperature can have a higher energy density than a monatomic gas at high temperature. Energy will flow from high temperature to low temperature as is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.
Says ‘Rocky’, displaying that he doesn’t understand that temperature is a measure of energy density (equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant).
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
Which is why: U = T^4 4σ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4σ/c.
Hence, radiant exitance =
= ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) Ah
= (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
= σ / a * Δe
The S-B equation for graybody objects (in all of its forms) is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
And just as water cannot spontaneously flow without an impetus (pressure gradient), energy cannot spontaneously flow without an impetus (energy density gradient).
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Same units.
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Same units.
So kooks like Rocky are the same sort of loons who claim that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: against a pressure gradient).
Laugh at the kook. Laugh him off the internet. He’s just gullible enough to have bought into the climastrologist bafflegab to the point that he’s claiming the same thing as claiming that water spontaneously flows uphill. LOL
The internal energy of an ideal gas is given by:
U = Cv n T
Cv for an ideal monoatomic gas is 3/2 R T.
Cv for a polyatomic gas is f/2 R T, where f is the number of degrees of freedom for the molecule and will be at least 3.
So, Cv for a polyatomic gas is greater than Cv for a monoatomic gas. That means that a low temperature polyatomic gas can have a higher internal energy than a high temperature monoatomic gas.
If you place these two gases next to one another separated by a wall that can transmit heat, then the high temperature low internal energy monoatomic gas will transfer heat to the low temperature high energy polyatomic gas.
This simple case proves that heat definitely can be transferred from low to high energy because heat is always transferred from high to low temperature.
So you are wrong on that. You are also wrong on the temperature of matter being “equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant”. That’s just made up nonsense.
Corrections:
Cv for a monoatomic gas is Cv = 3/2 R, and Cv for a polyatomic gas is Cv = f/2 R. I mistakenly added the extra T for temperature, which was incorrect.
Apologies.
That should have been Cv for a monoatomic gas is Cv = 3/2 R, and Cv for a polyatomic gas is Cv = f/2 R. I mistakenly added the extra T for temperature, which was incorrect.
Apologies.
Rocky wrote:
“That means that a low temperature polyatomic gas can have a higher internal energy than a high temperature monoatomic gas.”
Of course the climate loons must deny reality, they must claim that energy can flow at thermodynamic equilibrium (and even against an energy density gradient) in order for their climate alarmist blather to work. The problem is, that violates several fundamental physical laws.
You’re attempting to conflate internal energy with energy density, Rocky.
Internal energy is equipartitioned between the energetically accessible DOF of the atom or molecule, whether those DOF be rotational mode, vibrational mode, electronic mode or translational mode. At lower energy levels, some of those DOF can be ‘frozen out’ (ie: the energy isn’t sufficient to excite that particular mode).
At thermodynamic equilibrium, all energetically accessible DOF of all gases will have exactly the same energy, just as atoms or molecules at the same kinetic temperature will all have the same kinetic energy regardless of their atomic or molecular mass.
It’s known as the Equipartition Theorem, and you’re denying it, Rocky.
—–
For CO2, with a molecular mass of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular mass of 28.0134 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.472552224243 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.55381409564717 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3983877978326 m/s
—–
CO2_KE = ((1/2) m (v · v))
CO2_KE = ((1/2) * 7.307948764374951e-26 kg * (404.0195258297897 m/s * 404.0195258297897 m/s))
CO2_KE = 5.9644473243674682571545362758031e-21 J
N2_KE = ((1/2) m (v · v))
N2_KE = ((1/2) * 4.651734100954141e-26 kg * (506.3983877978326 m/s * 506.3983877978326 m/s))
N2_KE = 5.9644378149782481931358080148627e-21 J
The nearly imperceptible differential (9.5093892200640187282609404e-27 J) in kinetic energy is due to rounding errors.
Thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as a quiescent state. No radiation, no energy flows at TE. If it did, entropy would change… but entropy doesn’t change at TE, which forces you climate loons to claim that radiative energy exchange is an idealized reversible process… except it’s an entropic, temporal and irreversible process.
And that fact destroys every single bit of the climate alarmist blather.
Back radiation has been measured
It has been increasing
You are denying the CERES measurements
That is science denying.
Richard Greene wrote:
“Back radiation has been measured
It has been increasing
You are denying the CERES measurements
That is science denying.”
It’s been measured with pyrgeometers, and Claes Johnson shows how the climastrologist misuse of the S-B equation has extended to even pyrgeometers and FTIR spectrometers, to the FUBAR ‘forcing formula’ they used in IPCC AR6, and to their core narrative: CAGW.
Question, DoubleSix6Man (666Man, right? That was your CFACT pseudonym, right? You a satan-worshiping leftist arguing from the leftist perspective and using warmist ‘logic’ to mislead people to the warmist side, while appearing to be against it, Richard? You a Judas goat, Richard?)…
How does a satellite (CERES) measure downwelling radiation? It must derive it. Not measure it.
You are conflating a derived result with a direct empirical measurement.
That is science denying.
Energy does not and cannot flow up an energy density gradient without external energy doing work upon that system energy to push it up that gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell.
You and your ilk are the same sort of loons who claim that water can spontaneously flow uphill (up a pressure gradient (physical units [M1 L-2 T-2])) in your claim that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (physical units [M1 L-2 T-2]), producing a wholly fictive ‘backradiation’.
Energy density is pressure, energy density gradient is pressure gradient… for energy. Same physical units.
With no impetus to flow, water doesn’t spontaneously flow (no pressure gradient), nor does energy flow (no energy density gradient).
Likewise, water doesn’t spontaneously flow uphill (up a pressure gradient), nor does energy spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (up a radiation pressure gradient).
https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/18/new-studies-claim-the-more-co2-in-the-venus-atmosphere-the-colder-it-gets/#comment-1325136
Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.imgur.com/kS20QG1.png
… because temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
So just how do you propose that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, Richard? Magic?
Again, that’s the same as claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (against a pressure gradient). If you claimed that, you’d rightfully be laughed off the internet. You should likewise be laughed off the internet for your claim that energy can spontaneously flow cooler-to-warmer, up an energy density gradient, which is the underlying basis of the climastrologist ‘backradiation’ claim.
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Same physical units. Energy density IS pressure, and energy density gradient IS a pressure gradient… for energy.
Thermodynamics refers to net energy flows, not all energy flows.
I took a thermodynamics course in college. You are clueless.
I have been a libertarian since 1973 and am proud of that fact.
Your description of me is as wrong as your alt-science.
I voted for Trump in 2020, to try to prevent Biden from winning.
It was my first vote for a Republican in my life. I have voted libertarian for the past 40 years.
“Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object”
Where did you come up with this? The radiation emitted at each wavelength depends on an objects temperature and emissivity. The energy density depends on the state of matter. There are materials that can have a higher energy density at a given temperature than other materials at the same temperature. If they are at the same temperature then no energy will flow. Yet you are claiming that energy must flow from the high energy density material to the low energy density material.
You are wrong.
“Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object”
Where did you come up with this? The radiation emitted at each wavelength depends on an objects temperature and emissivity. The energy density depends on the state of matter. There are materials that can have a higher energy density at a given temperature than other materials at the same temperature. If they are at the same temperature then no energy will flow. Yet you are claiming that energy must flow from the high energy density material to the low energy density material.
You are wrong, again.
It’s just standard radiative physics and the fundamental physical laws that you’re denying, Rocky. No big deal… you’re just essentially claiming the same as claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill. LOL
https://i.imgur.com/kS20QG1.png
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
Which is why: U = T^4 4σ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4σ/c.
Hence, radiant exitance =
= ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) Ah
= (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
= σ / a * Δe
The S-B equation for graybody objects (in all of its forms) is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
And just as water cannot spontaneously flow without an impetus (pressure gradient), energy cannot spontaneously flow without an impetus (energy density gradient).
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Same units.
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Same units.
So kooks like Rocky are the same sort of loons who claim that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: against a pressure gradient).
In short, laughinstocks. LOL
It shows that in a higher concentration gas that radiates, radiates more at the same temperature.
It also means that at higher temperature more radiation is emitted by the gas.
But it does not mean, that the temperature goes up because there is more radiation.
More radiation means more energy is potentially lost.
But is it? And where does the energy come from?
Mr. Green, is it possible you have a gap in the explanation?
I commend to your attention,
Gerlich, Gerhard and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. “ International J of modern physics B, v. 23, No.3 (2009), 275-364,
and
Kramm, Gerhard, & Ralph Diugi, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, 2011, v. 3, no. 12, pp 671-998, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2011.32124.
Despite all the above, the physics underlying CAGW is worthless. If it is physically impossible, the rest doesn’t mean anything. .
The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas have been confirmed with lab spectroscopy
The physics of increasing downwelling radiation has been measured with satellites
The global average temperature has good satellite measurements, at least since 1979
The global average CO2 level has good measurements since 1958
The only physics not confirmed is your alt-physics theories.
Look up “How to fool yourself with a pyrgeometer”… the same misuse of the S-B equation that the climastrologists use to claim that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient is used in pyrgeometers, FTIR spectrometers, in their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’ that they used in IPCC AR6, and it’s the underlying basis of their climate doomsaying CAGW hypothesis. Without it, their whole scam collapses.
I show above why what they purport is unphysical, it violates several fundamental physical laws.
You, DoubleSix6Man (666Man… that was your CFACT pseudonym, right, Richard?) are a leftist wolf in conservative clothing, using the warmist talking points and their twisted concepts to mislead people to the warmist side while appearing to be against it. You attempt to fool the scientifically illiterate and the gullible, to sway them to the warmist side by using the warmist perspective of argumentation.
You’re fooling no one. When I pointed this out on CFACT, you disappeared.
https://i.imgur.com/qvRKKIS.png
Doublesixsixman was the moniker I originally used to sign up to Google — I used it to play online backgammon where the moniker has meaning. CFACT would not allo me to post comments without using that Google moniker. Not that you should care about monikers — you use one.
On my three blogs, I post the best articles I have read every day. They are almost 100% conservative and libertarian articles. I voted for one Democrat in my entire life — George McGovern in 1972, hoping he would end the Vietnam War. To call me a leftist is such bad judgement as to be hilarious. No one has ever before called me a leftist. In fact, leftists have called me many names I can’t type here.
Agreeing that the basic science behind AGW is reasonable does not make someone a leftist. Believing in CAGW does. In my climate science and energy blog. I have tried to present articles by other authors that refute CAGW and Nut Zero. I have had over 335,000 page views so far.
http://www.elOnionbloggle.Blogspot.com
There are also conservative articles
on other subjects on my Election Circus blog:
http://www.ElectionCircus.Blogspot.com
You will not find any pro-leftist articles there either.
However, I still don’t agree with your alt-physics.
But Double Six AND 6 is 666, Richard. It’s not “Double Six”, which applies to backgammon.
Your moniker was ‘DoubleSix6Man’, not ‘DoubleSixMan’.
You appear to be back-redefining your moniker, attributing it to backgammon while twisting it in hopes that people don’t see that you didn’t choose “DoubleSixMan”, you chose “DoubleSix6Man”.
There’s a reason you chose “DoubleSix” in the form of words, then tacked a ‘6’ on the back of that… in backgammon, ‘Double Six’ applies. ‘Double Six 6’ doesn’t.
Your denial of standard definitions and scientific concepts means you’ve bought lock, stock and barrel into the leftist talking points, the twisting of those definitions and concepts to advance their agenda. Thus every single one of your articles espousing the leftist talking points of CAGW and/or CO2-induced warming are pro-leftist. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, just as water cannot spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient (uphill)… same physical units for energy density and pressure, same physical units for energy density gradient and pressure gradient.
CAGW is unphysical because CO2-induced warming is unphysical. CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation, as I show in prior comments.
Hi, Tom.
There’s far more than that…
CO2 Cools The Troposphere, The Stratosphere, The Mesosphere And the Thermosphere
——————–
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331170257/https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/05/dr-fred-singer-co2-no-longer-affects-the-climate-all-co2-effects-are-overshadowed-by-climate-oscillations-and-changes-in-solar-activity/
“Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing (Myhre et al., GRL, 1998, vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908) and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize that this explanation is unacceptable to the IPCC and to many climate-warming advocates. I believe that the ‘gap’, now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider that the ‘pause’ may be permanent.”
The Thermosphere Has Cooled:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190627181516if_/https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/tci.png
The Stratosphere Has Cooled:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190621115328if_/https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/strattempanom1960-2011.gif
The graph shows multiple analyses of data from radiosondes that have measured stratospheric temperature for several decades. Graph adapted from Figure 2.7 in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, State of the Climate, 2011.
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331144412/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“Abstract: The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL066749
Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331154613/https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/esd-7-697-2016.pdf
Observations of infrared radiative cooling in the thermosphere on 2 daily to multiyear timescales from the TIMED/SABER instrument
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331170025/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100011897.pdf
“Abstract:. We present observations of the infrared radiative cooling by carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) in Earth’s thermosphere.”
A Guide to CO2 and Stratospheric Cooling
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331083854/https://climatephys.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/a-guide-to-co2-and-stratospheric-cooling/
Cooling of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere due to doubling of CO2
https://web.archive.org/web/20190702041827/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00585-998-1501-z
The sensitivity of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (MLT) to doubling of CO2 has been studied. The thermal response in the MLT is mostly negative (cooling) and much stronger than in the lower atmosphere. An average cooling at the stratopause is about 14 K. It gradually decreases to approximately 8 K in the upper mesosphere and again increases to about 40–50 K in the thermosphere.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201107073433/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750020489/downloads/19750020489.pdf
However, it has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201107181415/https://journals.ametsoc.org/jas/article/33/11/2094/19130/A-Non-Equilibrium-Model-of-Hemispheric-Mean
By more completely accounting for those anthropogenic processes which produce both lower tropospheric aerosols and carbon dioxide, such as fossil fuel burning and agricultural burning, we calculate an expected slight decrease in surface temperature with an increase in CO2 content.
https://www.nature.com/articles/280668a0
The results suggest that CO2 significantly reduces the shortwave energy absorbed by the surface of snow and water. The energy deficit, when not compensated by downward atmospheric radiation, may delay the recrystallisation of snow and dissipation of pack-ice and result in a cooling rather than a warming effect.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201107184211/https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.3370040405
An analysis of northern, low and southern latitude temperature trends of the past century, along with available atmospheric CO2 concentration and industrial carbon production data, suggests that the true climatic effect of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere may be to cool the Earth and not warm it, contrary to most past analyses of this phenomenon.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201107184502/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222622330_The_climatic_effect_of_CO2_A_different_view
If the top of this CO2 greenhouse blanket were to be raised by the addition of CO2 and maintained at constant temperature, this would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool (i.e., if this radiating layer were pushed above 20 km without changing its temperature).
https://web.archive.org/web/20190209033912/https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
The enhanced cooling produced by the increasing CO2 should result in a more contracted thermosphere, where many satellites, including the International Space Station, operate. The contraction of the thermosphere will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the already unstable orbital debris environment, because it will slow the rate at which debris burn up in the atmosphere.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331125400/https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect Within The Frame Of Physics
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275–364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
https://web.archive.org/web/20190507171857/https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-chemists-conclude-co2-greenhouse-effect-is-unreal-violates-laws-of-physics-thermodynamics/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190518114539/https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
Carbon dioxide: sometimes it is a cooling gas, sometimes a warming gas
https://web.archive.org/web/20191129071439/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2505/03ff12f781dd62783d250ea82495bd4823ae.pdf
The results show that as air temperature increases from winter to summer CO2 is a cooling gas and from summer to winter it is a warming gas regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201113061656/https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20200422040143/https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-wrong.html
This provides a sizeable cooling effect upon surface temperatures attributable to the so-called greenhouse gases of water vapor and carbon dioxide. If they did not absorb this solar insolation, the additional power incident upon the surface would be (0.19)(342 W/m2) = 65.0 W/m2. Add this to the 219 W/m2 (64% of 342 W/m2) actually incident upon the surface and assume that the surface reflectivity is still 15.2% as used by K-T in Fig. 2., then the total power absorbed by the surface would be (1 – 0.152) (219 + 65) W/m2 = 241 W/m2. With a surface emissivity of 0.5, this would make the surface temperature 303.6K. This means that the absorption of incoming solar radiation by water vapor and carbon dioxide is a 16.0K cooling of the surface. This is substantially more than the IPCC claim for the temperature rise due to doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 5.4K with strong positive water vapor reinforcement. This brings home the critical need to account for additional cooling absorption of the IR portion of solar insolation due to changes in the water vapor and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201113061938/http://www.ke-research.de/downloads/ClimateSaviors.pdf
IR gases (“greenhouse gases”) cool the Earth. The “natural greenhouse effect” (i.e. the warming) is a myth.
Negative Climate Sensitivity: Global Cooling 1
https://web.archive.org/web/20201113062024/https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2012/12/non-positive-climate-sensitivity.html
The thermodynamics in the atmosphere would thus have the effect of reducing the dry adiabatic lapse representing a possible state without radiative forcing and thermodynamics, and thus an effect of reducing the surface temperature. Climate sensitivity as the increase of the Earth surface temperature upon doubling of CO2, would thus be negative: More CO2 would tend to be cooling rather than warming, but the effect would probably be so small that it could not be observed.
Spectral Cooling Rates For the Mid-Latitude Summer Atmosphere Including Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331141324if_/https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4.png
Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive numbers in the scale at right) extends right down to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
That’s from Maria Hakuba, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
The climate scientists, the UN IPCC and various US government-funded agencies claim that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, and the only remedy is to radically alter our economic system and our way of life.
They claim this occurs via the following mechanism: CO2 absorbs 14.98352 µm radiation, becomes vibrationally excited in the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, then collides with another atmospheric molecule, whereupon that vibrational mode energy flows to translational mode energy of the other atmospheric molecule. Since we sense translational mode (kinetic) energy as temperature, this process purportedly raises atmospheric temperature. The climate catastrophists claim that CO2 is capable of causing catastrophic warming.
But what if they’re only telling the public half the story as means of pushing a narrative to achieve an end they would otherwise be unable to achieve? It turns out, that is exactly what they’ve done… and I can prove it.
I’m not talking about the “glaciers are growing”, “it’s cold outside”, “take a look at this chart” subjective type of ‘proof’ usually proffered in attempting to counter the climate alarmist claims… I’m talking about diving right down to the base, utilizing quantum physics and the fundamental physical laws to prove that the mechanism upon which the climate catastrophists hinge their entire multi-billion dollar per year scam does not and cannot occur… if an energetic process (catastrophic atmospheric warming due to CO2) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.
The half of the story the public has been told, that CO2 causes warming, is a narrow and intentionally misconstrued truth hiding two much wider lies.
The truth is that CO2 can indeed cause warming via the mechanism described above… up to ~288 K and at low altitude. Above ~288 K and at low altitude, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant. Above the tropopause, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at any temperature because collisional processes happen less often there due to low atmospheric density, so radiative processes dominate.
One wider lie that’s hiding behind that narrow and misconstrued truth is that the world must de-industrialize, get rid of capitalism and change our way of life… the climate change issue has been hijacked by socialists using it as a vehicle to push for a world-wide totalitarian government. They’ve openly admitted this.
Another wider lie that’s hiding behind that narrow and misconstrued truth is that we must richly fund the climate ‘scientists’ who are pushing the scam, and we must move to so-called ‘green’ power… hundreds of billions of dollars per year are being flushed down the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) toilet based upon this lie.
The full story: In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE), which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
Note here that the term ‘transition temperature’ is not used in relation to phase change, but to a change in the role of the given molecular species from net cooling to net warming or vice versa.
Climate alarmists claim that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) can occur because the CO2 molecule absorbs 14.98352 µm radiation, becomes vibrationally excited in one of its bending modes, collides with a nitrogen or oxygen molecule or argon atom, and imparts that vibrational energy to the translational energy of the other molecule via a process known as collisional de-excitation, thereby increasing atmospheric temperature.
The climate alarmists claim that this process occurs under all circumstances. This represents a violation of 2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem.
CO2 is a dual-role molecule, just as all molecules capable of emitting radiation are.
The ‘transition temperature’ of any given molecular species is dependent upon the differential between:
1) the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules,
-and-
2) the lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule.
When 2) > 1), energy flows from vibrational mode to translational mode, which is a warming process.
When 1) > 2), energy flows from translational mode to vibrational mode, which is a cooling process.
Below ~288 K, the vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2’s lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state, CO2{v21(1)}, is higher than the average combined translational mode energy of two colliding atmospheric molecules, therefore the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Equipartition Theorem dictate that energy will flow from vibrational mode to translational mode.
The increase in kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules represents an increase in temperature.
Above ~288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that enough of the atmospheric molecules carry sufficient combined translational mode energy upon molecular collision to begin significantly vibrationally exciting CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state.
A graphic, showing the percentage of molecules which carry sufficient kinetic energy at 288 K to excite CO2{v21(1)}
https://i.imgur.com/CxVTcro.png
The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process.
This increases the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that it will radiatively emit. The resultant radiation which is emitted to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
This ‘transition temperature’ at which CO2 changes from being a net-warming to a net-cooling molecule is ~288 K, with CO2 acting more and more in its net-cooling mode as temperature increases (because there are three CO2{v2} vibrational mode quantum states which are very nearly degenerate ( {v20(0)} {v21(1)}; {v21(1)} {v22(2)}; {v22(2)} {v23(3)} ), and because there is also the CO2{v3(1)} vibrational mode quantum state which can emit radiation which falls within the Infrared Atmospheric Window, allowing that radiation a nearly unfettered transit to space).
Thus CO2 is physically incapable of causing catastrophic warming, and indeed is a net atmospheric coolant above its transition temperature, in accord with 2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem.
The same concept applies for all molecules capable of emitting radiation. The only thing that changes is the transition temperature at which any given molecular species changes roles from net-cooling to net-warming or vice versa, because each molecular species has different excited vibrational mode quantum state energies.
Thus, in the troposphere, CO2 is a moderator, raising temperature via v-t (vibrational -> translational) collisional processes below its transition temperature and lowering temperature via t-v (translational -> vibrational) collisional processes above its transition temperature. Above the troposphere, it acts as a net atmospheric radiative coolant because collisional processes exponentially decrease as altitude increases, thus radiative processes dominate. This increases buoyancy of convecting parcels of air, increasing convection, which is a cooling process. A higher CO2 atmospheric concentration would allow a given mole parcel of air to more effectively radiatively emit, with the majority of that radiation being upwelling due to the mean free path length / air density / altitude relation.
We have a perfect naturally-occuring example of this in the Grand Canyon, a furrow nearly a mile deep. Temperature is ~10-20 F higher at the canyon bottom than at the canyon rims despite the fact that only ~77% (yearly average) of sunlight reaches the canyon bottom due to the steepness of the canyon walls. At that area of the canyon which is oriented roughly East-West, air flows over the canyon rims, descends, and is gravitationally auto-compressed, warming it. That puts the CO2 in that air into its net-cooling mode and its radiant exitance increases, to such an extent that one can trace out the outline of the canyon from IR sensors on satellites, even at night. The air picks up moisture from the river and wants to convect upward, but cannot due to the downwelling air, so it creates a thin layer of air flowing upstream just above the river, exiting at the mouth of the canyon. This is why Page Airport is typically warmer than surrounding areas (except when there’s a prevailing South-Southwest wind).
Thus, we have two known-effective means of cooling the atmosphere which hew to the fundamental physical laws:
1) Remove Ar from the atmosphere. This will diminish the effect of Ar diluting the polyatomic radiative molecules in any given parcel of air, increasing molar heat capacity of that parcel, allowing it to convectively transit more energy from surface to upper atmosphere while also being able to more effectively radiatively emit that energy to space.
2) Dig deep East-West furrows which are open at top and at one end or both ends to a lower-altitude region to allow air to flow down and through. The gravitational auto-compression of the air would put CO2 into its net-cooling radiative mode (especially for the CO2{v3(1)} vibrational mode quantum state (if the furrow is deep enough), which emits at 9.6 µm or 10.6 µm (dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecule and upon which vibrational mode quantum state the {v3(1)} state de-excites to) which is in the Infrared Atmospheric Window, allowing that radiation nearly unfettered transit to space). To cool the atmosphere, you’d uncover the furrows, to stop the cooling, you’d cover the furrows to block radiation from escaping.
Here’s a graph of Temperature (K) vs. Gas Fraction (%) of atmospheric particles (atoms, molecules) with sufficient combined kinetic energy to vibrationally excite the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state upon collision (assuming a head-on collision… naturally, not all collisions are head-on, and the energy exchanged is dependent upon angle of collision). This data is derived from the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution function.
https://i.imgur.com/19eLZin.png
You’ll note that as the Gas Fraction increases (temperature increases), the proportion of CO2 molecules which are vibrationally excited increases, which has the same effect as a reduction in atmospheric concentration of CO2… a radiative molecule cannot absorb a resonant photon for a vibrational mode quantum state which is already excited (unless there are degenerate or nearly degenerate vibrational mode quantum states which are not excited)… that photon passes that molecule by with at most a phase shift of the photon and the bound electron(s) (which changes the vector of the photon… IOW, scattering) and at least no interaction whatsoever (dependent upon whether the photon enters the local EM field of the bound electron(s)).
In the case of a phase shift, no energy is exchanged between photon and molecule, only the phases of the bound electron(s) and the photon are shifted.
IOW, as temperature increases, a ‘window’ (similar to the Infrared Atmospheric Window) begins forming, increasing the mean free path length of the radiation at 14.98352 µm wavelength. Given that radiation emitted by the surface is already upwelling, that gives that radiation a greater probability of reaching space before it incides upon an unexcited CO2 molecule.
So, emitted by the surface, absorbed by CO2, thermalized and convected then emitted in the upper atmosphere (with the net vector upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation); or emitted by the surface and going straight out to space… either way, that radiation isn’t ‘trapped’ because:
1) That thermalization increases CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection, which transits energy to the upper atmosphere at a higher rate, convectively carrying with it the latent heat of vaporization of water vapor… it pumps more energy than just the energy which the CO2 absorbs and thermalizes. And once in the upper atmosphere, a higher concentration of polyatomics allows more effective radiative emission, which increases convection even more by lending more buoyancy to convecting air parcels due to the increased radiative cooling in the upper atmosphere (ie: CO2 radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it).
2) That ‘straight to space’ scenario certainly isn’t trapping radiation.
So no, CO2 is not a ‘heat trapping, global warming’ gas as the climastrologists claim… it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming at the tropopause (where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
That’s from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png
That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere completely would not only kill off flora (and thus fauna), it would cause the surface to warm because that would increase the proportion in any given parcel of air of the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) which cannot effectively radiatively emit.
In an atmosphere consisting solely of monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, they could gain energy via conduction by contacting the surface (just as the polyatomic radiative molecules can do), they could convect (just as the polyatomic radiative molecules can do), but once in the upper atmosphere they could not as effectively radiatively emit (because monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit nor absorb IR; and because the homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision (which doesn’t happen much in the upper atmosphere due to low air density))… the upper atmosphere would warm, which would lend less buoyancy to parcels of air attempting to convect, and that would hinder convection.
And that’s how an actual greenhouse works… by hindering convection. Thus it is the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) which are the actual ‘greenhouse gases’, and the radiative polyatomics (H2O, CO2) are net atmospheric radiative coolants.
” climate scientists, the UN IPCC and various US government-funded agencies claim that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, and the only remedy is to radically alter our economic system and our way of life.”
They are all making predictions of doom not based on data.
There are no data for the future climate.
Just 50+ years of always wrong predictions of doom (CAGW)
You are misinterpreting what the IPCC claims.
They start with a high estimate of the effect of CO2 alone. Let’s call that AGW — although higher than many other estimates. Then they multiply the higher than average estimate of the effect of CO2 alone by 2x to 4x for an imagined water vapor positive feedback that has never happened in the past 4.5 billion years, even with CO2 levels up to 10x higher than today.
The theory of a positive feedback makes sense — a warmer troposphere will hold more water vapor. But some other variable limits that positive feedback. My best guess is that increased water vapor in the troposphere increases cloudiness, with reduces incoming solar energy, limiting the global warming, which would otherwise eventually become runaway global warming. Which would have ended almost all life on Earth long ago.
The theory of a positive feedback doesn’t make physical sense, Richard. You’re just buying into the warmist talking points yet again.
Water vapor acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause. It is a net atmospheric radiative coolant.
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is due to the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2), which in a dry atmosphere make up more than 99% of the atmosphere. Water vapor reduces that lapse rate because it is a coolant, it dilutes the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics (the actual ‘greenhouse gases’).
Their predictions are always wrong because their premise is wrong… intentionally so, so that they can push those predictions to convince people of impending doom, in order to implement policies which they otherwise could not implement.
You’re helping them in that endeavor by arguing from their perspective, from the perspective that energy can flow without regard to the energy density gradient, that energy can flow without work being done, that ‘backradiation’ is a physical reality rather than a wholly-fictive result of their misuse of the S-B equation, that positive feedback is something that ‘makes sense’.
I’d tell you to educate yourself, but you don’t seem to be sincere in your ‘efforts’ to end CAGW… instead you keep doubling-down on your desperate clinging to the climastrologist talking points.
Hence, one can only conclude that you’re a Judas goat, here to herd the gullible and the scientifically illiterate away from the scientific facts which show that all of CAGW is unphysical because CO2 causing warming of any sort is unphysical, and in fact CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming right at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
The image above is from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png
That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.
[…] New Studies Claim The More CO2 In The Venus Atmosphere The Colder It Gets […]
Kooks wrote, “It’s just standard radiative physics and the fundamental physical laws that you’re denying, Rocky. No big deal… you’re just essentially claiming the same as claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill. LOL”
There is no physical law that states that heat cannot flow from low energy to high energy. However, the second law does state that in the absence of external work heat can only flow from high TEMPERATURE to low TEMPERATURE. As with the ideal gas example, there are low energy collections of matter that can have a higher temperature than high energy collections of matter.
Just as the flow of water is related to the net velocities of its individual molecules, the flow of heat is also related to the net fluxes of energies at the microscopic level. Water sitting statically in a cup on your desk has molecules moving wildly in all directions within. The overall velocity of the water as a whole is zero. A very similar picture emerges for heat transfer.
Rocky wrote:
“There is no physical law that states that heat cannot flow from low energy to high energy.”
2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.
Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, unless external energy does work upon that system energy to push it up that gradient.
The definition of ‘heat’ is ‘an energy flux, a flow of energy from one object to another’. One does not say that heat flows. Energy flows. Heat is an action. Objects do not contain ‘heat’, they contain energy transferred to them by heat.
Rocky wrote:
“Just as the flow of water is related to the net velocities of its individual molecules, the flow of heat is also related to the net fluxes of energies at the microscopic level. Water sitting statically in a cup on your desk has molecules moving wildly in all directions within.”
That’s a false analogy (thermal vibrations affect invariant-mass particles, not photons), but let’s go with it. According to your claim that energy can flow against an energy density gradient, you must then also claim that these individual molecules, upon impact, can somehow gain energy above the average and thus move in bulk. Water can thus flow against a pressure gradient, just as you claim that energy can flow against an energy density gradient, right?
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Same units, right? Same concept. Energy is energy, it obeys the same fundamental physical laws and exhibits the same behavior regardless of form, and you claim that energy can radiatively flow up an energy density gradient… so you MUST now claim that water can flow up a pressure gradient. LOL
Rocky is one of those street-corner crazies screaming at the sane that water can spontaneously flow uphill. He’s just not smart enough to realize that fact yet. LOL
Rocky wrote:
“However, the second law does state that in the absence of external work heat can only flow from high TEMPERATURE to low TEMPERATURE.”
Keep in mind that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
e = T^4 4σ/c
T = 4^√e/(4σ/c)
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 a
T = 4^√(e/a)
Therefore, radiant exitance =
= ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
= ε σ (e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c))) A_h
= (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
= σ / a * Δe
The S-B equation in all of its forms is designed to subtract the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object to arrive at the energy density gradient, the radiant exitance of the warmer object determined by that energy density gradient.
It is not designed to calculate emission to 0 K for all graybody objects, then subtract the energy flux of the cooler object from the energy flux of the warmer object.
Doing it your way is essentially isolating each graybody object into its own system, unable to interact via the EM field with other objects, then ‘connecting’ the objects via mathematical hand-wavium.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
In essence, you’re claiming that for a 12 V battery electrically connected ‘+ to +’ and ‘- to -‘ to another 12 V battery, that first 12 V battery can do work upon the second 12 V battery.
In fact, what you claim is the same as claiming that a 1.5 V battery electrically connected ‘+ to +’ and ‘- to -‘ to a 12 V battery will do work upon that 12 V battery.
Energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient according to you, right?
https://tinyurl.com/yzo8hak9
Yeah, we can analogize thermodynamics to electrical theory because energy is energy no matter its form… it exhibits the same behavior and obeys the same fundamental physical laws no matter its form.
So that’s two analogizations (fluid flow, electrical theory) which you’ve been shown now, Rocky… are you capable of grasping those simplifications to concepts laypeople can easily intuitively grasp?
Or will you continue denying reality to protect your poor little brain from imploding at the thought of you having bought into a poorly-told and wholly-unphysical CAGW fairy-tale? LOL
“You’re attempting to conflate internal energy with energy density, Rocky.”
So you agree that heat can flow from an object with low internal energy to an object with higher internal energy.
That alone refutes your prior statements.
“2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.
Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, unless external energy does work upon that system energy to push it up that gradient.”
That is not Clausius’ statement of the second law.
Try again. Get it right this time.
That’s exactly what it states, Rocky. You’re just incapable of understanding it because you’ve got your definitions all muddled.
From 1854, the Clausius Statement sense of 2LoT:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
That “some other change” is generally external energy doing work upon the system to push that system energy up that energy density gradient.
Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux”.
Thus: “No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (aka the radiation constant).
Thus: “No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a lower energy density to a higher energy density body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
Or, as Wikipedia correctly states under the heading for the Clausius statement of 2LoT:
“Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example.”
Where:
“cold regions” = lower energy density regions
“hot regions” = higher energy density regions
“That’s exactly what it states”
Nope.
““Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.””
Nothing about energy density there. Only “warmer”, i.e. higher temperature, and “colder”, i.e. lower temperature.
If you need a specific case to deal with, then all you need to do is to consider hydrogen gas versus helium.
Cv for H2 is 10.16 kJ/kgK
Cv for He is 3.12 kJ/kgK
It should be easy enough for anyone that can do arithmetic to find a state where the internal energy density of H2 is LESS than that for He while the temperature for H2 is GREATER than that for He.
Heat will always flow from the higher TEMPERATURE H2 to the lower TEMPERATURE He, all the while the energy density of the He is GREATER than the energy density of the H2.
This is not terribly difficult science.
Sorry, I got that backwards. Allow me to correct:
It should be easy enough for anyone that can do arithmetic to find a state where the internal energy density of H2 is GREATER than that for He while the temperature for H2 is LESS than that for He.
Heat will always flow from the higher TEMPERATURE He to the lower TEMPERATURE H2, all the while the energy density of the H2 is GREATER than the energy density of the He.
Rocky wrote:
“It should be easy enough for anyone that can do arithmetic to find a state where the internal energy density of H2 is GREATER than that for He while the temperature for H2 is LESS than that for He.”
Why don’t you do that, Rocky? Go on, prove yourself WRONG. LOL
You can ‘do arithmetic’, right? LOL
Rocky wrote:
“Nothing about energy density there. Only “warmer”, i.e. higher temperature, and “colder”, i.e. lower temperature.”
Temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (ie: Stefan’s Constant).
e = T^4 4σ / c
a = 4σ / c
e = T^4 a
T^4 = e / (4σ / c)
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))
T = 4^√(e / a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
∴ q = (ε c Δe) / 4
e is ENERGY DENSITY.
Δe is the ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT.
You only deny reality because that’s the only way you can continue to shill for your religious belief in the unphysical, unscientific and wholly-fictive CAGW.
“Temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (ie: Stefan’s Constant).”
WRONG.
For Helium the internal energy is given by:
U = Cv R T
That can then be converted to an internal energy per unit volume or an internal energy per unit mass. Neither of those quantities is “equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant”.
You are good at being wrong.
“For Helium the internal energy is given by:
U = Cv R T”
That is the internal energy per mole. The internal energy is:
U = Cv n R T
“you must then also claim that these individual molecules, upon impact, can somehow gain energy above the average”
There are always some molecules that gain energy by collisions and others that lose energy. This is not surprising. Some molecules will have a higher energy than the average and some molecules will have a lower energy than the average. Again, this is not surprising to anyone that understands how an average is calculated.
“Thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as a quiescent state.”
No it’s not. At thermodynamic equilibrium the molecules in a gas are flying around in all directions, banging into one another, changing velocities, bumping up against the walls of the container, etc., etc. That is certainly not a “quiescent state.
You just make up BS and hope someone will buy it.
It literally is. Had you the ability to operate a search engine, you’d have realized this, and you wouldn’t have been forced to embarrass yourself in such a manner, Rocky.
No one is making up BS except for you.
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~gonza226/ME612/Lecture-10.pdf
“Thermodynamic equilibrium
After an external perturbation (of finite duration in time), all systems tend to evolve to a quiescent and spatially homogeneous (at the macroscopic length scale) terminal state where the system’s macroscopic observables have constant limiting values.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491615003504
“The quiescent state of an isolated system in which all properties remain constant on the t_TD time scale is called the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nature-breaks-the-second-law/
“The Achilles’ heel of thermodynamics is that, strictly speaking, it applies only when the system under study is in a quiescent state called equilibrium.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3229
“Classical thermodynamics is built around the concept of equilibrium states. If we leave a system undisturbed, it relaxes to an apparently quiescent state…”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_76/March_1910/The_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics:_Its_Basis_in_Intuition_and_Common_Sense
“This quiescent state is called a state of thermal equilibrium.”
https://dokumen.pub/thermodynamics-principles-characterizing-physical-and-chemical-processes-5nbsped-0128219408-9780128219409.html
“Thermodynamic equilibrium: A state of a system where, as a necessary condition, none of its properties changes with time”
Now, you climate loons claim that all objects emit when their temperature is greater than 0 K (and some of you claim that objects must absorb all radiation incident upon them)… except emission (and absorption) isn’t quiescence.
That’s another little fact which destroys CAGW.
In reality, only idealized blackbody objects emit when their temperature is greater than 0 K. Idealized blackbody objects are idealizations… they don’t actually exist. The closest we can come are laboratory blackbodies which are highly emissive and absorptive at certain wavelengths, but even they do not absorb all radiation incident upon them, nor do they emit all radiation they absorb (they have heat capacity, which idealized blackbody objects must not have by definition, which makes idealized blackbody objects unphysical).
Real-world graybody objects emit when their temperature is greater than 0 K above their ambient.
It’s right there in the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
… which your climastrologists misuse to push their leftist narrative. They did it with the Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Balance graphic (and all subsequent iterations of same), they even bastardized their misuse of the S-B equation into their FUBAR “forcing formula” as used in IPCC AR6: 4 σ ε T^3
How do they misuse the S-B equation? They use the form of the S-B equation meant for idealized blackbody objects:
q = σ T^4
… for real-world graybody objects… and they slap emissivity onto that (sometimes… they didn’t in the K-T diagram):
q = σ ε T^4
Idealized Blackbody Object (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1):
qbb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) Ah
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K) 1 m2
= σ T^4
Graybody Object (assumes emission to greater than 0 K and ε less than 1):
qgb = σ ε (T_h^4 – T_c^4) Ah
I’m sure you can see the problem inherent in their misuse of the S-B equation, yes?
It’s akin to isolating each object into its own system, where the object cannot interact via the EM field with other objects. It calculates radiant exitance for each object as if that object were emitting to 0 K, thus inflating radiant exitance of each object far above what it actually is. Then, to get their equation to balance, they carry those incorrect values through the calculation and cancel them on the back end… subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated for emission to 0 K and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That’s not how the S-B equation is meant to be used. It’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, temperature being a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (ie: Stefan’s Constant). Radiant exitance of the warmer object is determined by the energy density gradient.
“It literally is.”
Nope. You are conflating “quiescent” at the MACROSCOPIC length scale with quiescent at the MICROSCOPIC length scale.
As has been explained to you, at thermodynamic equilibrium individual molecules are not “quiescent”. They are flying around in ALL directions. The same is true for radiation. At thermodynamic equilibrium photons are flying around in all directions.
You clearly are unable to glean the context from what you are quoting.
No, you are attempting to conflate quiescence at the macroscopic scale (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium, which you’ve denied outright) with some magical ability for CAGW to happen because energy can somehow magically flow without regard to the energy density gradient in your kooky hobby hypothesis which leads to CAGW.
At thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity and absorptivity of graybody objects go to zero. All photons are reflected. The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of boundary contraints. Wavemode nodes being the zero-crossing points (and anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects. Should one object change temperature, that standing wave will become a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the energy density differential and in the direction of the cooler object.
This is standard cavity theory that you’re now denying.
If you like, I can embarrass you next by mathematically proving that emissivity and absorptivity for graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium go to zero, therefore reflectivity goes to unity.
“No, you are attempting to conflate quiescence at the macroscopic scale (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium, which you’ve denied outright)”
I have not denied quienscence at the MACROSCOPIC scale. In fact that is exactly the context that I pointed out to you.
You continue to deny that at MACROSCOPIC equilibrium, there are MICROSCOPIC fluctuations that are CONSTANTLY occurring.
Do try to learn to read the papers that you are quoting for comprehension.
The entrance to pg slot auto mobile that is comfortable, easy and accessible for everyone, pg slot whether newbies or experts can find this entrance. because we have prepared the entrance to the front
“Why don’t you do that, Rocky?”
Why don’t you Kooks? Is the arithmetic too hard for you?
If you don’t already see that this simple case proves that your statements are incorrect, then you are not very good at math.
Kooks writes, “It’s just standard radiative physics and the fundamental physical laws that you’re denying”.
Standard radiative physics and fundamental physical laws state that at equilibrium any object above 0K is emitting radiation. Furthermore, in order to be at equilibrium such objects are also absorbing the same amount of energy from their surroundings.
So again, you just made up a bunch of BS and puked it out all over the internet.
Rocky wrote:
“If you don’t already see that this simple case proves that your statements are incorrect, then you are not very good at math.”
That’s a funny way of you admitting that you cannot do it, Rocky. LOL
Of course, if you were any “good at math”, you’d realize that your being able to do so would prove you WRONG. LOL
You made the claim, you back that claim up, Rocky. That’s how this works. If you cannot (and you quite obviously cannot), then tuck tail and slink away to nurse your wounded and ever-so-fragile psyche. LOL
Rocky wrote:
“You continue to deny that at MACROSCOPIC equilibrium, there are MICROSCOPIC fluctuations that are CONSTANTLY occurring.”
And those microscopic fluctuations still hew to the fundamental physical laws.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1073/pnas.1411728112
And those constructive and destructive interference collisional processes are ‘smeared out’ because collisions occur in 3 DOF, so there is no net.
You obviously think this is my first rodeo, that a kook of your ilk hasn’t attempted in the past to claim that because gaseous atoms and molecules undergo constant collision in 3 DOF that 2LoT is somehow violated and thus CAGW via continual 2LoT violation. That a kook of your low caliber hasn’t attempted in the past to conflate the classical and microscopic particle collision in 3 DOF of a gaseous atmosphere with the wholly-quantum phenomenon of radiation (which classical physics cannot even describe nor explain) and energy flow.
“That’s a funny way of you admitting that you cannot do it”
Of course I can do it. But apparently you cannot. Here, I’ll even provide you with the parameters.
Cv for H2 is 10.16 kJ/kgK
Cv for He is 3.12 kJ/kgK
Calculate the internal energy density of 1 mole of H2 at 1 atm and 273K.
Calculate the internal energy density of 1 mole of He at 1 atm and 280K.
It’s not difficult. The results prove that your statements are wrong.
Now, what’s the volume occupied by those two moles, one H2, one He, Rocky?
Do you believe the atmosphere works on a molar basis? Or does it work on a volume basis?
It quite obviously works on a volume basis… it is the change in volume of a parcel of air which determines that parcel’s buoyancy, is it not?
You’re just conflating like crazy to attempt to shill for CAGW, aren’t you? LOL
“Now, what’s the volume occupied by those two moles, one H2, one He, Rocky?”
That’s easy enough to compute using the ideal gas law. The information I provided allows you to do so. Why didn’t you do it?
You don’t know how.
It is your claim, therefore it is your proof, Rocky. That’s how this works.
If you cannot prove it, just say so, so everyone can laugh all the harder at you. LOL
“It is your claim, therefore it is your proof”
Yes it is, and it proves you wrong.
The volume of the He is 280/273 times that of the H2, so not terribly different.
The internal energy of the He is 3.12 x 280 / (10.16 x 273) times that of the H2.
So the temperature of the He is HIGHER than that of the H2 and the internal energy per unit volume is LOWER than that of the H2 (as is the internal energy per unit mass).
So, you are proven wrong.
Sorry Rocky,
but the specific heat capacity is first of all temperature dependent and second off all, will not determine the temperature.
You are wrong.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (ie: Stefan’s Constant).”
Rocky wrote:
“WRONG.”
You are literally denying every single bit of reality thrown your way, Rocky. You’ve denied the fact that thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as a quiescent state; you’ve denied standard cavity theory; you’ve denied that energy is energy no matter its form, that it exhibits the same behavior and hews to the fundamental physical laws no matter its form; you deny the difference between intensive (energy density) and extensive (internal energy) properties; you deny the Equipartition Theorem; you deny the precepts of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense; you deny basic definitions… and all to shill for your religious belief in a wholly-unphysical and poorly-told CAGW fairy-tale.
e = T^4 4σ / c
a = 4σ / c
e = T^4 a
T^4 = e / (4σ / c)
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))
T = 4^√(e / a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
∴ q = (ε c Δe) / 4
e is ENERGY DENSITY.
Δe is the ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT.
Are you denying that the internal energy of a volume of helium gas is given by:
U = Cv n R T
This is fundamental physics.
That formula is NOT equivalent to “the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant”.
You are wrong.
Awww, are you denying the Equipartition Theorem *again*, Rocky? LOL
Why would you think I am denying the equipartition theorem?
The internal energy of a volume of helium gas is given by:
U = Cv n R T
Do you agree with this bit of fundamental physics or not?
Equate the energy density in that volume with the equivalent photon energy, then equate that to the temperature (one measure of temperature being that of the kinetic energy of the atmospheric atoms and molecules, the other being the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant), Rocky.
Go on, prove yourself WRONG, Rocky. LOL
Or continue denying the Equipartition Theorem and thereby embarrassing yourself. Your choice.
“Equate the energy density in that volume with the equivalent photon energy, then equate that to the temperature (one measure of temperature being that of the kinetic energy of the atmospheric atoms and molecules, the other being the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant), Rocky.”
What is the equation for the “equivalent photon energy”?
Provide you source. Wait, you just made that up.
Rocky wrote:
“What is the equation for the “equivalent photon energy”?”
You mean you don’t know, Rocky? LOL
I bet you don’t even know that energy density has the same physical units as pressure, huh? And that despite having been told same several times. LOL
The pressure P for a photon gas exerted in the x-direction on area A of a wall is summed over all i = 1 to N photons:
P = ½ ∑ 2 pix vix / V = ⅓ U/V = ⅓ e,
U is just ∑ pix vix + piy viy + piz viz for photons.
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant).
Which is why: U = T^4 4σ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4σ/c.
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
Wow! Look at all that reality you’re denying, Rocky! LOL
“It is your claim, therefore it is your proof”
That’s right, I don’t know what your made-up “equivalent photon energy” is, because you just made it up.
Provide a citation for how this “equivalent photon energy” is calculated.
You can’t because you made it up.
I just gave you the formula to calculate photon energy, Rocky. Obviously, you cannot use a search engine to learn about it, right? Because obviously you’re so far out of your depth that you knew absolutely nothing about it, necessitating that you use a search engine to learn about it, but you obviously cannot do so… so here you sit, stuck, flop-sweating and spittle-flecking your way through the standard list of climate kook denials. LOL
You can continue to deny reality, just don’t expect anyone to lend any credence to your blather, Rocky. LOL
“I just gave you the formula to calculate photon energy, Rocky. ”
It’s your argument. It’s up to you to do the calculation.
Go ahead. When you do you will realize that you don’t even get the correct temperatures for the He and the H2.
That’s what happens when you make up nonsense.
It’s not my argument. You’re the kook claiming that energy won’t be equipartitioned into all energetically accessible DOF of a system and therefore that temperature is not equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant.
It’s your claim, the responsibility for proving your claim falls to you.
Of course, you cannot… because unphysical libtard drivel has no mathematical proof. LOL
So you’re stuck denying every single bit of physical reality thrown at you and attempting to get others to do your math for you. LOL
I’ve already provided Stefan’s Law, Stefan’s Constant, Planck’s Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between temperature and energy density… you’re denying all of that reality.
“It’s not my argument. ”
Of course it is. You’re the one who made up “effective photon energy”. It’s up to you to do your made-up calculation.
I’ve already proven that He can have a higher temperature and lower energy than H2. That alone proves you are wrong.
If you think “effective photon energy” can sow otherwise then do the calculations for the H2 and He.
You can’t.
Rocky wrote:
“Yes it is, and it proves you wrong.
The volume of the He is 280/273 times that of the H2, so not terribly different.
The internal energy of the He is 3.12 x 280 / (10.16 x 273) times that of the H2.
So the temperature of the He is HIGHER than that of the H2 and the internal energy per unit volume is LOWER than that of the H2 (as is the internal energy per unit mass).”
{golf clap} Way to show that you cannot even do simple math nor grasp simple concepts, Rocky. LOL
The math is correct as anyone that can do basic arithmetic can show.
Your statements are proven wrong.
Your kookmaf isn’t correct, Rocky. Do it again. And this time, do it correctly and stop embarrassing yourself. LOL
My math is correct. If you are of a different opinion then show what you disagree with.
It’s not difficult arithmetic.
You are wrong.
You’ve literally denied fundamental physical laws and wide swaths of physical reality, Rocky, claiming me to have ‘made it up’.
Your kookmaf is a manifestation of your denials of reality, and just as you’re wrong to deny physical reality and fundamental physical laws, your kookmaf is wrong.
Step back, examine your premises, correct them, then start again. Don’t expect me to pull you out of the hole you’re digging for yourself. I’ll be up here, pointing and laughing because you’re just dumb enough to not stop digging. LOL
Rocky wrote:
“The internal energy of the He is 3.12 x 280 / (10.16 x 273) times that of the H2.”
That’s 873.6 / 2773.68 = 0.31496062992125984251968503937008
So the climate kook is claiming that He at 280 K will only have 0.31496 times the energy of H2 at 273 K.
Not sure where you’re pulling your numbers from, Rocky, but they’re unphysical. Likely because you don’t understand something fundamental… like reality. LOL
For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482
V_m = 249.8482*[R]*280) / 101325.5 = 5.7405281285878300803673938002296 m^3
U = 3491.88 J
Energy Density = 608.459696 J m-3
For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.08998 kg m-3
DOF = 5 (1 frozen out at 273 K)
z = 101325*(1/0.08998)/([R]*273) = 496.1052
V_m = (496.1052*[R]*273)/101325 = 11.1135807957324 m^3
U = 5674.305 J
Energy Density = 510.57396389999930970400080720093 J m-3
So H3 at 280 K has 1.191717 times the energy density of H2 at 273 K.
But wait, Rocky, didn’t you claim that H2 at a lower temperature would have higher energy density than H3 at a higher temperature? Oh, did you forget that at room temperature, H2 only has 5 degrees of freedom because one of them is frozen out? LOL
Well, that’s another embarrassment for you, eh? And it just so happens to blow every single bit of your blather right out of the water, while proving yet again that you can’t do simple math nor grasp simple concepts. LOL
{ bows, graciously accepts applause } LOL
Now deny reality again, nutter. LOL
Mheh…
“So H3 at 280 K”
-should be-
“So H2 at 280 K”
Mheh…
The references to H3 should be He. I’ve noticed this forum tends to change things and move things around… when I paste the S-B equation from a PDF file, it moves the emissivity symbol in between T_h and T_c.
That’s annoying, I have to carefully proofread the post prior to posting.
Rocky wrote:
“Of course it is. You’re the one who made up “effective photon energy”.”
Awww, the poor kook, when cornered by reality, denies reality, claims those proving him wrong are making everything up, then essentially begs them to do his math for him because he cannot do it himself. LOL
The below is the reality the kook is now denying, claiming that fundamental physical laws are ‘made up’. LOL
The pressure P for a photon gas exerted in the x-direction on area A of a wall is summed over all i = 1 to N photons:
P = ½ ∑ 2 pix vix / V = ⅓ U/V = ⅓ e,
U is just ∑ pix vix + piy viy + piz viz for photons.
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant).
Which is why: U = T^4 4σ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4σ/c.
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
When are you going to apply your made-up “effective photon energy” to the He at 280K and H2 at 273K?
You can’t get around the fact that the internal energy density of the H2 is GREATER than that of the He.
You are wrong.
Rocky wrote:
“You can’t get around the fact that the internal energy density of the H2 is GREATER than that of the He.”
Denying the Equipartition Theorem *again* based upon your kookmaf, Rocky? LOL
Again, I have not denied the equipartion theorem.
The internal energy of He and H2 is given as
U = Cv n R T
where Cv is different for He and H2.
Why do you think this fundamental formula is in contradiction of the equipartition theorem? You are just throwing out terminology that you don’t even understand.
You are wrong.
If you’re denying that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, not only are you denying a fundamental physical law (Stefan’s Law), but you’re denying that energy will be equipartitioned in all energetically accessible DOF of the system and you thus deny the Equipartition Theorem.
But then, you’ve denied every other bit of physical reality thrown at you, so your denials of the above are to be expected. LOL
If I were wrong and if you knew how to do simple math, you’d have proven me wrong by now. You have not. You have instead issued denials of reality as cover for your inability to do simple math and your fear that your being able to do that simple math will prove you wrong. LOL
“You’ve literally denied fundamental physical laws and wide swaths of physical reality, Rocky, claiming me to have ‘made it up’.”
I have not denied anything except for the nonsense that you have made up.
You claimed to disagree with my calculation and now you are deflecting.
You are wrong.
Rocky wrote:
“I have not denied anything except for the nonsense that you have made up.”
Yes, folks, Rocky here claims me to have ‘made up’ Stefan’s Law, Stefan’s Constant, Planck’s Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature. LOL
But he’s *not* a kook, right? LOL
“Yes, folks, Rocky here claims me to have ‘made up’ Stefan’s Law”
No, I claimed that you made up “effective photon energy”.
The internal energy of He and H2 is described by the ideal gas laws. All claims to the contrary that you are making are made-up nonsense.
“Your kookmaf is a manifestation of your denials of reality, and just as you’re wrong to deny physical reality and fundamental physical laws, your kookmaf is wrong.”
If you think my math is wrong, then point out exactly where and correct it.
The problem for you is that my math is correct, and it’s you who is wrong.
“If you’re denying that temperature is a measure of energy density”
Energy density is dependent on temperature, and for different substances the energy density is a different function of temperature, as is the case for H2 and He. This is now proven and your continued denials are inane.
“equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant”
Nope. For H2 and He the internal energy density is NOT “equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant”. You continue to be wrong.
“not only are you denying a fundamental physical law (Stefan’s Law)”
The energy density of He and H2 is modeled by the ideal gas laws, not Stefan’s Law. You don’t have a clue.
“but you’re denying that energy will be equipartitioned in all energetically accessible DOF of the system and you thus deny the Equipartition Theorem”
I’m not denying that at all, but you must like to repeat it because you think those are big words that will confuse anyone else reading this.
“But then, you’ve denied every other bit of physical reality thrown at you, so your denials of the above are to be expected. LOL”
I have denied no physical realities, only your made-up nonsense.
“If I were wrong and if you knew how to do simple math”
You are wrong, and I do know how to do simple math.
“you’d have proven me wrong by now”
I have proven you wrong. He at 280K has a lower energy density than H2 at 273K. That fundamental fact proves you wrong.
“You have not.”
I have, and anyone that can do basic arithmetic can see that.
“You have instead issued denials of reality as cover for your inability to do simple math”
In reality, that would be you.
“and your fear that your being able to do that simple math will prove you wrong”
Again, the reality is that this is a description of you.
Rocky wrote:
“Energy density is dependent on temperature, and for different substances the energy density is a different function of temperature, as is the case for H2 and He. This is now proven and your continued denials are inane.”
I’ve got you on the back foot, Rocky. You’ve just conceded a bit. Before, you completely denied that energy density had anything to do with temperature. It’s only a matter of time before you concede defeat.
Temperature is literally mathematically the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant. You are literally denying a fundamental physical law. LOL
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant. Remember that energy is equipartitioned into all energetically available DOF (translational mode, rotational mode, vibrational mode, electronic mode) of a system per the Equipartition Theorem. This is what gives the ‘stair-step’ specific heat capacity effect as vibrational mode quantum states unfreeze as temperature increases. Also remember that IR radiation is emitted from excited vibrational mode quantum states. Also remember that for nearly all molecules, rotational and vibrational mode quantum states are unfrozen at typical Earth temperatures.
e = T^4 4σ / c
a = 4σ / c
e = T^4 a
T^4 = e / (4σ / c)
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))
T = 4^√(e / a)
The S-B equation:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
∴ q = (ε c Δe) / 4
e is ENERGY DENSITY.
Δe is the ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT.
The S-B equation is designed to subtract energy density of the cooler object from energy density of the warmer object to arrive at the energy density gradient, which is what determines warmer object radiant exitance.
This is akin to taking the differential of electric potential at two points (ie: the electric potential gradient) to arrive at voltage… in fact, we can analogize temperature to voltage via (K^4 * σ). We can further analogize shunting current to ground as emission to 0 K, we can analogize resistance as emissivity, we can analogize a diode as the fact that emissivity only applies to objects which are emitting (not to those which are absorbing), we can analogize capacitance as heat capacity… and all of the equations work out to the same results that the S-B equation gets. Because energy is energy no matter its form, it exhibits the same behaviors and obeys the fundamental physical laws no matter its form.
Circuit simulator: https://tinyurl.com/yzo8hak9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#SI_units
Your blather is in the same vein as street corner crazies screaming at the sane that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: against a pressure gradient) and thus we’re all somehow doomed; that a 1.5 V battery can charge (do work upon) a 12 V battery when electrically connected ‘+ to +’ and ‘- to -‘ and thus we’re all somehow doomed.
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
Note that work and energy are so closely intertwined that they have the same dimensional units.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
Volume: [M0 L-3 T0]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy over Volume is Energy Density.
Force: [M1 L1 T-2]
Area: [M0 L2 T0]
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Force over Area is Pressure.
Note that Pressure and Energy Density have the same dimensional units.
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Pressure over Length is Pressure Gradient.
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density over Length is Energy Density Gradient.
Note that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same dimensional units.
Just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow and cannot spontaneously flow against a pressure gradient (ie: uphill), energy requires an impetus (energy density gradient) to flow and cannot spontaneously flow against an energy density gradient.
Energy density *is* a pressure, and energy density gradient *is* a pressure gradient… for energy. We call it radiation pressure. Look it up.
So just as you’d get laughed off the internet for claiming that water can spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient (ie: uphill), so too should you be laughed off the internet for your claim (the same claim that the climastrologists make, which they attempt to substantiate via mathematical fraudery in their misuse of the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects) that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
All of CAGW is predicated upon that claim, so it’s understandable that you’d fight it just as hard as your hamster-wheel brain would allow, but not even warmist physicists have prevailed against me, and climastrologists clam up and leave forums when I show up, because they know that I destroy the fallacious arguments used to bolster CAGW.
You? You stand zero chance. You’ve already embarrassed yourself several times, and your denials of reality do not change reality one whit.
“Rocky wrote:
“The internal energy of the He is 3.12 x 280 / (10.16 x 273) times that of the H2.””
That’s right. Are you unfamiliar with the internal energy of an ideal gas?
U = Cv n R T
Cv for He is 3.12 kJ/kgK and Cv for H2 is 10.16 kJ/kgK
So, the one thing that I did miss is that the Cv is per kg instead of per mole. Given that the molar mass of He is approximately 2 times that of H2, I am missing a factor of 2.
So the corrected statement is:
“The internal energy of the He is 4 x 3.12 x 280 / (2 x 10.16 x 273) times that of the H2.”
The result remains. He at 280K has a lower internal energy that H2 at 273K.
You remain wrong.
Apparently Kooks does not understand how to use the ideal gas law.
The volume of 1 mole of He at 1 atm and 280K is 280/273 time the volume of 1 mole of H2 at 1 atm and 273K.
Hence the volume of the He is only 1.0256 times the volume of the H2, yet your incorrect calculation has that ratio at 5.74/11.11 = 0.517. You’re not even on the right side of 1.
The idea gas law states that the volume of the He is GREATER than the volume of the H2. Your INCORRECT calculation has it being less.
You are terrible at science.
I didn’t use the ideal gas law, I didn’t treat the H2 and He as ideal gases. You did, which is why you’re wrong.
The ideal gas law is for an ideal gas. H2 and He are not ideal gases, they have a compressibility factor greater than 1. You didn’t know that, which is why you’re wrong.
I used the actual parameters of the gases in question, you used something that doesn’t even apply. But you climate kooks are known for conflating idealizations with real-world to push your narrative. LOL
You didn’t account for the fact that H2 at 273 K only has 5 DOF, not 6 because 1 DOF is frozen out. You didn’t know that, which is why you’re wrong.
Then you pulled some kookmaf from your sun-don’t-shine that doesn’t even correlate to anything, claiming that the He at 280 K would only have 0.3149606 times the energy of the H2 at 273 K.
For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482
V_m = 249.8482*[R]*280) / 101325.5 = 5.7405281285878300803673938002296 m^3
U = 3491.88 J
Energy Density = 608.459696 J m-3
For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.08998 kg m-3
DOF = 5 (1 frozen out at 273 K)
z = 101325*(1/0.08998)/([R]*273) = 496.1052
V_m = (496.1052*[R]*273)/101325 = 11.1135807957324 m^3
U = 5674.305 J
Energy Density = 510.57396389999930970400080720093 J m-3
So He at 280 K has 1.191717 times the energy density of H2 at 273 K.
But wait, Rocky, didn’t you claim that H2 at a lower temperature would have higher energy density than He at a higher temperature? Sure you did. And you did that bit of sophistry so you could claim that energy spontaneously flows from lower energy density to higher energy density… which is exactly the same as if you’d claimed that water can spontaneously flow uphill. LOL
You were wrong, and now all you can do is continue denying reality. LOL
“I didn’t use the ideal gas law, I didn’t treat the H2 and He as ideal gases. You did, which is why you’re wrong.”
LOL. He and H2 are about as close as you can get to ideal gases.
You calculated the volume wrong.
Hilarious.
No, I didn’t calculate the wrong volume. He and H2 are not ideal gases because they have a compressibility factor greater than 1. That changes the calculated volume.
Your treatment of He and H2 as ideal gases via the ideal gas law doesn’t even take into account compressibility factor because the ideal gas law assumes compressibility factor of 1.
You didn’t know that, and that’s why you’re wrong. And just as I stated, your only recourse after having been proven to be wrong yet again is to blurt out more denials of reality. LOL
“No, I didn’t calculate the wrong volume.”
Indeed you did.
“He and H2 are not ideal gases because they have a compressibility factor greater than 1.”
The compressibility factor of He at 303K and 101.3kPa is 1.00046. So sorry, but as I told you that is about as close to an ideal gas as you can get.
The compressibility factor for H2 at 303K and 101.3kPa 1.0007. So AGAIN, this is VERY close to being an ideal gas.
Feel free to be more precise and figure out He at 280K and H2 at 273K.
Your calculation of the volume is WRONG.
Kooks Claims:
“For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3”
Kooks actually got the density of helium right. So let’s use the ideal gas law to see what we get for the density at 280K and 101325Pa.
p = (P M)/(R T) = 0.174203 kg/m^3
So Kooks’ density for He AGREES with the ideal gas law. Now let’s take a look at H2.
Kooks writes:
“For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.08998 kg m-3”
Again, Kooks actually got the density of H2 right. So let’s AGAIN use the ideal gas law to see what we get for the density at 280K and 101325Pa.
p = (P M)/(R T) = 0.0899844 kg/m^3
So AGAIN, Kooks value for the density agrees with the ideal gas law. It’s almost as if Kooks is USING the ideal gas law to determine the density.
Unfortunately, given the density and the molar mass, Kooks does not understand how to calculate volume. Given that the density is the mass per volume, and the molar mass is the mass per mole, then M/p is just the volume per mole. Given that our problem uses 1 mole of He and 1 mole of H2, the volume per mole will be the volume in our problem.
So let’s use Kook’s numbers for He to calculate the volume of the He (we do have to convert the density to g/m^3):
M/p = 4.0025/174.2 = 0.0229765 m^3
Oops, it looks like Kooks didn’t calculate the volume of the He correctly. Let’s check the calculation for the H2.
M/p = 2.0158/89.98 = 0.0224028 m^3
Oops, AGAIN Kooks did not calculate the volume correctly.
Let’s look at the ratio of these volumes. The volume of the He divided by the volume of the H2 is 0.0229765/0.0224028 = 1.0256. I stated that this ratio should be equal to 280/273. What does that equal? 280/273 = 1.0256. Well look at that. I was right.
Kooks is wrong.
Rocky wrote:
“Kooks actually got the density of helium right.”
That’s correct, I got everything right.
Rocky wrote:
“So let’s use the ideal gas law to see what we get for the density at 280K and 101325Pa.”
No, you cannot use the ideal gas law and arrive at the correct answer because He and H2 have a compressibility factor greater than 1, which changes the calculated volume.
Despite having been told this repeatedly, you still cannot grasp this simple concept.
You cannot treat He and H2 as ideal gases and arrive at the correct volume. You are wrong.
Just admit you are wrong because you’re attempting to use an idealization (the ideal gas law, which doesn’t even factor compressibility factor in) rather than the actual gas parameters, learn from your mistake and move on.
Or continue embarrassing yourself. LOL
In fact, you’re even using the Universal Gas Constant in calculating your compressibility factor, so you got that wrong, as well… one must use the Specific Gas Constant for the gas in question.
Do you even know how to calculate the Specific Gas Constant, Rocky? LOL
So you’ve failed all ’round. That’s got to be embarrassing for you, eh? LOL
“In fact, you’re even using the Universal Gas Constant in calculating your compressibility factor”
Nope. I simply looked them up. You can do so too.
“Do you even know how to calculate the Specific Gas Constant, Rocky?”
Of course. The specific gas constant is simply the universal gas constant divided by the molar mass of the gas.
What do you think that has to do with your incorrect calculation of the volume?
The volume is simple the molar mass divided by the density. No need for the specific gas constant in that formula.
This is an interesting test case. Do you have the ability to admit to your error?
Let’s use Kooks’ numbers to calculate the compressibility factor Z.
“For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3”
The formula for Z is:
Z = P/(p R_spec T) = P/(p (R/M) T)
Z = 101325 / (0.1742 (8.314426/0.0040025) 280) = 1.0000
Oh my. Kooks doesn’t even realize that he was using the ideal gas law all along, and he does understand that the compressibility factor can only be determined by measuring the actual properties of the gas and looked up in a table or from coefficients determined from measurements for a non-ideal gas law.
“That’s correct, I got everything right.”
Nope. You calculated the volume wrong. Furthermore, contrary to your prior protestations, you used the ideal gas law.
The volume of each mole of gas is simply the molar mass divided by the density.
Either you were not aware of this simple result or you calculated it incorrectly.
Either way, you are wrong.
“No, you cannot use the ideal gas law and arrive at the correct answer because He and H2 have a compressibility factor greater than 1, which changes the calculated volume.”
And yet the ideal gas law gives EXACTLY the same result that you reported for the density. So how did YOU get the density if you did not use the ideal gas law?
Ok, you admit that I got the density correct. Yes? You’ve admitted that, to wit:
Rocky wrote:
“Kooks actually got the density of helium right.”
Rocky wrote:
“Again, Kooks actually got the density of H2 right.”
What’s the inverse of density, Rocky?
For He:
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
Would it not have units of m^3 kg-1? Cubic meters per unit kilogram, right? Sure it would.
How many m^3 would one kg of He occupy at 280 K and 101325 Pa, Rocky?
How many m^3 would one kg of H2 occupy at 273 K and 101325 Pa, Rocky?
Go on, admit to the world that you cannot do simple math nor understand simple concepts. LOL
For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482
V_m = 249.8482*[R]*280) / 101325.5 = 5.7405281285878300803673938002296 m^3
U = 3491.88 J
Energy Density = 608.459696 J m-3
For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.08998 kg m-3
DOF = 5 (1 frozen out at 273 K)
z = 101325*(1/0.08998)/([R]*273) = 496.1052
V_m = (496.1052*[R]*273)/101325 = 11.1135807957324 m^3
U = 5674.305 J
Energy Density = 510.57396389999930970400080720093 J m-3
“Ok, you admit that I got the density correct. Yes?”
Yes, the density is EXACTLY what the ideal gas law predicts for the density. So, in the sense that the ideal gas law is a highly accurate approximation for these gases at these temperatures and pressures, yes you got the densities correct.
“For He:
p = 0.1742 kg m-3”
Agreed
“How many m^3 would one kg of He occupy at 280 K and 101325 Pa, Rocky?”
1 kg would occupy 1/0.1742 = 5.74 m^3. However, the problem does not have 1kg of He, it has 1 mole of He which you acknowledged in a previous comment.
Are you confused by the difference between kg and moles?
You made an error. When are you going to admit to it?
Rocky wrote:
“1 kg would occupy 1/0.1742 = 5.74 m^3.
So you admit that I got the volume exactly correct, then. LOL
Rocky wrote:
“However, the problem does not have 1kg of He, it has 1 mole of He which you acknowledged in a previous comment.”
Yes, here:
https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/18/new-studies-claim-the-more-co2-in-the-venus-atmosphere-the-colder-it-gets/#comment-1325840
In which I wrote:
“Do you believe the atmosphere works on a molar basis? Or does it work on a volume basis?
It quite obviously works on a volume basis… it is the change in volume of a parcel of air which determines that parcel’s buoyancy, is it not?”
That’s why the lapse rate equation is on a mass basis, not a molar basis, Rocky.
Then you presented density in units of kg m-3, obviously you wanted to work with a kg of He and a kg of H2, right? On a mass basis rather than a molar basis, right?
Otherwise you would have presented density in units of mol m-3.
So I was exactly correct for the volume of one kg of H2 at 273 K and 101325 Pa, and one kg of He at 280 K and 101325 Pa… but you said I wasn’t correct… because you can’t even get your units right. LOL
For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482
V_m = 249.8482*[R]*280) / 101325.5 = 5.7405281285878300803673938002296 m^3
U = 3491.88 J
Energy Density = 608.459696 J m-3
For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.08998 kg m-3
DOF = 5 (1 frozen out at 273 K)
z = 101325*(1/0.08998)/([R]*273) = 496.1052
V_m = (496.1052*[R]*273)/101325 = 11.1135807957324 m^3
U = 5674.305 J
Energy Density = 510.57396389999930970400080720093 J m-3
And you were incorrect in your claim that a lower temperature gas would have higher energy density.
What, exactly, have you been *right* about, Rocky? Nothing. LOL
““1 kg would occupy 1/0.1742 = 5.74 m^3.
So you admit that I got the volume exactly correct, then.”
No. You got the volume wrong. There is 1 mole of gas, not 1 kg. You already know this, but now you are trying to weasel out.
You wrote, “Now, what’s the volume occupied by those two moles, one H2, one He, Rocky?”
So you know that we have 1 mole of He and 1 mole of H2.
It’s not difficult to admit one’s errors. They happen. In fact I made an error in some of my comments on the formula for internal energy. I wrote, “U = Cv n R T” in several comments. The correct formula is “U = Cv n T”, where of course Cv is the molar heat capacity at constant volume in this formula. If you want to use the heat capacity in J/kgK then you have to convert using the molar mass.
What formula are you using to calculate the internal energy U?
Now, are you going to admit to you error on the volume calculation?
If you would like to work with 1kg of He and 1kg of H2, then we can do that. For that case your numbers are in agreement with the ideal gas law for the volumes of each 1kg quantity at their associated temperature.
So let’s list what we agree on:
1kg of He at 101325 Pa and 280K has a volume of 5.74 m^3.
1kg of H2 at 101325 Pa and 273K has a volume of 11.11 m^3.
These numbers agree with the ideal gas law.
Now, let’s calculate the internal energy for 1kg of each of these gases.
For He the specific heat at constant volume is 3.12 kJ/kgK, and for H2 the specific heat at constant volume is 10.16 kJ/kgK.
U = Cv_mass x mass x T
He: U = 3.12 kJ/kgK x 1 kg x 280K = 873.6 kJ
H2: U = 10.16 kJ/kgK x 1 kg x 273K = 2773.7 kJ
Now, the energy density of these gases is just the internal energy divided by their volume.
He: 873.6 kJ / 5.74 m^3 = 152.2 kJ/m^3
H2: 2773.7 kJ / 11.11 m^3 = 249.7 kJ/m^3
So we see that the LOW temperature H2 has a HIGHER energy density than the high temperature He, and yet the second law of thermodynamics states that heat must flow from the high temperature He to the low temperature H2.
So again, even after you try to weasel around and calculate the volume for 1kg instead of 1 mole, the correct end results for the energy densities will not change, proving once again that you are wrong.
Rocky wrote:
“No. You got the volume wrong. There is 1 mole of gas, not 1 kg.”
You gave the density in units of kg m-3. The inverse of that is m^3 kg-1. For each kg of H2 and He, I got the volume exactly correct. I even provided the calculation for compressibility factor which checked that math… I got it correct two different ways.
It’s not my fault that you can’t even get your units correct, Rocky. LOL
And energy density is energy over VOLUME, not energy over moles… so that’s another concept you find yourself utterly unable to grasp. I correctly used volume, you’re off in the weeds blathering about water spontaneously flowing uphill, energy flowing willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient and energy density having units of energy per mole. LOL
I correctly calculated the energy density of 1 kg of H2 and 1 kg of He within their respective correct volumes, and showed that your blather that a lower temperature would have a higher energy density is incorrect.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
Volume: [M0 L3 T0]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Now all you’re left with is bitter tears and more denials of reality, Rocky. LOL
“You gave the density in units of kg m-3.”
Of course I gave denisty in kg/m^3. That is the correct unit for density. You are the one that introduced density in your calculations. I’m just pointing out your errors.
“For each kg of H2 and He, I got the volume exactly correct.”
Yes, you got the volume for a kg of each gas correct. The problem for you is that the problem was for a mole of each gas, not a kg. You know this. You wrote it yourself.
“It’s not my fault that you can’t even get your units correct, Rocky.”
My units are correct.
“I even provided the calculation for compressibility factor which checked that math”
Your compressibility factor is laughably wrong. The actual compressibility factors of He and H2 at these temperatures and pressures are a 1 with three zeros following before another number shows up. All of YOUR calculations are based on the ideal gas law, which means the compressibility factor in your calculations must be 1.
“And energy density is energy over VOLUME”
Yes, that is correct.
“I correctly calculated the energy density of 1 kg of H2 and 1 kg of He within their respective correct volumes”
Actually you did not. Your values for the internal energy are wrong. What formula did you use for U?
It’s amazing that it is taking this long for you to admit your errors.
Rocky wrote:
“Of course I gave denisty in kg/m^3. That is the correct unit for density. You are the one that introduced density in your calculations. I’m just pointing out your errors.”
What errors, Rocky? You’ve admitted that I got the correct density *and* the correct volume for 1 kg of each gas.
Rocky wrote:
“Yes, you got the volume for a kg of each gas correct.”
Oh, so you now admit that I got the density correct *AND* I got the volume correct… but you’ve moved the goalposts to that of compressibility factor. You’re in a fighting retreat, Rocky. LOL
Rocky wrote:
“Your compressibility factor is laughably wrong.”
https://www.calculatoratoz.com/en/compressibility-factor-calculator/Calc-1160#FormulaPanel
https://i.imgur.com/xydO8ec.png
https://i.imgur.com/lySgI8t.png
Oh, now isn’t your face red, Rocky? I got the compressibility factor exactly correct, too, for 101325 Pa for each gas in their correct volumes, at their correct densities and at their respective temperatures. LOL
Now where will you move the goalposts to, Rocky? LOL
In fact, I checked the math, arriving at the same results two different ways, as the equations below show. 1/p = V_m, right?
For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.174203 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482
V_m = 249.8482*[R]*280)/101325.5 = 5.7405281285878300803673938002296 m^3
U = 3491.88 J
Energy Density = 608.459696 J m-3
For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.089984 kg m-3
DOF = 5 (1 frozen out at 273 K)
z = 101325*(1/0.08998)/([R]*273) = 496.1052
V_m = (496.1052*[R]*273)/101325 = 11.1135807957324 m^3
U = 5674.305 J
Energy Density = 510.57396389999930970400080720093 J m-3
So He at 280 K has 1.191717 times the energy density of H2 at 273 K.
Rocky is attempting to claim that energy density is in units of energy per mole, to bolster his claim that a lower-temperature (273 K) volume of H2 will have higher energy density than a higher-temperature (280 K) volume of the same mass (1 kg) of He. And that so he can claim that energy flows without regard to the energy density gradient. And that so he can claim ‘backradiation’ is the causitive agent for CAGW. The above proves him wrong.
Did you forget, Rocky, that temperature is one measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules in a gas, that rotational mode, vibrational mode and electronic mode quantum state energy does not contribute to temperature?
So you’re comparing kinetic temperature for He to kinetic temperature + rotational temperature for H2. That’s sophistry.
Further, you’re assuming the rotational and vibrational mode quantum states for H2 are in their excited states when calculating your energy density… but in fact, for H2 at 273 K, two of those DOF are frozen out, giving H2 only 5 DOF (3 translational, 2 rotational… and the axial rotational state has nearly no energy because the molecule is axially symmetric) … so the vibrational mode quantum states certainly aren’t going to be in excited states… they’re frozen out until you get to 3392 K.
Your sophistry is thus mooted. LOL
Are you saying that the internal energy of He and H2 gases is not given by:
U = Cv_molar n T
How are you calculating U?
It’s fun watching you squirm. It’s clear I have proven you wrong. You will just never admit to it. It doesn’t matter though. Anyone else can see you are beaten.
Says the guy who’s repeatedly claimed me to be wrong, only to be proven wrong, whereupon he moved the goalposts and claimed me to be wrong about something else, only to be proven wrong yet again, rinse and repeat. LOL
Rocky:
“There’s nothing that says that energy can’t flow from lower energy density to higher energy density!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense says exactly that. You just don’t understand it because you’ve got your definitions muddled and you’re incapable of understanding simple concepts.”
Rocky:
“Temperature is not equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“Temperature is defined by Stefan’s Law as being equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant. You’re literally denying fundamental physical laws now. Look at these calculations… {link}”
Rocky:
“Wuuuulll, temperature has something to do with energy density, but temperature is only the kinetic energy of particles and has nothing to do with radiation energy density because energy is not equipartitioned into all energetically accessible degrees of freedom of a system!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“The Equipartition Theorem states that energy is equipartitioned into all energetically accessible degrees of freedom of a system and thus temperature and radiation energy density are inherently correlated. Look at these calculations… {link}”
Rocky:
“Wuuullll, the Equipartition Theorem does state that, but you’re wrong about the density!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“No, I’m exactly correct about the density. Look at these calculations… {link}”
Rocky:
“Wuuullll, you’re right about the density, but you’re wrong about the volume!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“No, I’m exactly correct about the volume. Look at these calculations… {link}”
Rocky:
“Wuuullll, you’re right about the volume, but you’re wrong about the compressibility factor!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“No, I’m exactly correct about the compressibility factor. Look at these calculations… {link}”
Rocky:
“Wuuullll, you’re right about the the compressibility factor, but you’re wrong about the internal energy!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“You’re calculating internal energy wrong because you don’t understand rotational and vibrational mode quantum states, how rotational and vibrational mode quantum states affect specific heat capacity, and you didn’t have a clue what ‘frozen out’ even meant. Look at these calculations… {link}”
Rocky:
“It’s fun watching you squirm! It’s clear I have proven you wrong!”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks:
“It is clear that you’re a delusional laughingstock, Rocky. LOL”
Kooks is flopping around like a fish out of water now. Here is what he wrote about the internal energy of He and H2.
“For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482
V_m = 249.8482*[R]*280) / 101325.5 = 5.7405281285878300803673938002296 m^3
U = 3491.88 J
Energy Density = 608.459696 J m-3
For H2:
T = 273 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 2.0158 g mol-1
p = 0.08998 kg m-3
DOF = 5 (1 frozen out at 273 K)
z = 101325*(1/0.08998)/([R]*273) = 496.1052
V_m = (496.1052*[R]*273)/101325 = 11.1135807957324 m^3
U = 5674.305 J
Energy Density = 510.57396389999930970400080720093 J m-3”
So, to calculate U he is using the formula:
U = (DOF/2) R n T, where he is also using R = 8.314 J mole^-1 K^-1, and n is the number of moles
For He he states the number of DOF is 3 and he gets:
U = 3/2 x 8.314 x 1 x 280 = 3491.88 J
For H2 he states the number of DOF is 5 and he gets:
U = 5/2 x 8.314 x 1 x 273 = 5674.305 J
Anyone can plug these numbers into their calculator and see that this is EXACTLY what he did. So, while he calculated the volume of a kg of each gas, he is calculating the internal energy of a mole of each gas. Furthermore this formula for the internal energy is again based on IDEAL GAS behavior and is derived from statistical mechanics.
Now, if he had used this formula correctly he would have realized that his 1kg of He is 1000g / 4.0025 g mol-1 = 249.844 moles and thus the internal energy of the He is U = 3/2 x 8.314 x 249.844 x 280 = 872425 J which is close to my result of 873.6 kJ which was based on the measured value of Cv for He.
For H2 the number of moles in 1kg is 1000g / 2.0158 g mol-1 = 496.081 moles, and thus the internal energy of the He is U = 5/2 x 8.314 x 496.081 x 273 = 2814.9 kJ which is close to my result of 2773.7 kJ which was based on the measured value of Cv for H2.
Even using his values which are ALL based on results for IDEAL gases (which he ignorantly claimed he was not using) he would have found (if he had not made the mistake of calculating the volume of 1kg but the energy of 1 mole) that the energy density of the HIGH temperature He is LOWER than the energy density of the LOW temperature H2.
Unfortunately for him, his numbers are all there for everyone to see and he clearly made several errors. But most importantly, when his errors are corrected, his own calculations show that his claim that heat cannot flow from low energy density to high energy density is wrong.
He will never admit to his errors because he does not actually care about truth or science. He only cares about his own ego and so he cannot admit to his mistakes.
Still attempting to compare kinetic temperature of He with kinetic temperature + rotational temperature of H2, Rocky? LOL
Still attempting to claim that energy density has units of energy per mole, Rocky? LOL
Now take out the rotational temperature of H2… it doesn’t contribute to kinetic temperature. Kinetic temperature is solely a measure of the kinetic (translational mode) energy of the atoms or molecules.
See, if you knew anything about anything, you’d have known that, Rocky… but you knew so little that you attempted to claim that energy density was in units of energy per mole rather than energy per volume; you didn’t even know enough about rotational and vibrational mode quantum states to know that H2 has 2 DOF frozen out at 273 K; and you’ve denied every bit of science thrown at you, to include denying fundamental physical laws. LOL
Now blather more, Rocky. The voices screaming in your head compel you to do so, and I, your intellectual superior, command you to do so. LOL
This is YOUR calculation of the internal energy.
YOU calculated the internal energy of 1 MOLE of gas and divided that result by the volume of 1 kg of gas.
You made an error.
You are WRONG.
I will follow up with your error in calculating Z.
Kooks does not understand what the compressibility factor Z is.
There are two equivalent forms:
Z = P V / (n R T) = P / (p R_specific T)
Kooks does not know what R_specific is.
Kooks wrote:
“For He:
T = 280 K
P = 101325 Pa
M = 4.0025 g mol-1
p = 0.1742 kg m-3
DOF = 3
z = 101325*(1/0.1742)/([R]*280)=249.8482”
Let’s find his error, shall we?
Note that the units for his numbers are:
101325 Pa = 101325 J m-3
0.1742 kg m-3
280 K
R = 8.314 J mol-1 K-1
So he calculates
101325 J m-3 *[1/(0.1742 kg m-3)]/([8.314 J mol-1 K-1]*280 K)=249.8482 mol kg-1
The Kook did not calculate the compressibility factor, he calculated the number of moles per kilogram of He at 101325 Pa and 280K based on the IDEAL GAS LAW.
He’s absolutely clueless. The compressibility factor is UNITLESS. He calculated something with UNITS of mol/kg.
Again, he will not admit to his error because he does not care about the truth, only his ego.
For my calculations, I was exactly correct, Rocky.
You, on the other hand, are the one denying fundamental physical laws, giving energy density the units of energy per mole and attempting to compare kinetic temperature of He with kinetic temperature + rotational temperature of H2.
And that because you’re desperate to claim that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, to bolster your insane CAGW narrative.
Now remove rotational temperature and do it properly.
Or continue bleating like an idiot. Your choice. LOL
“For my calculations, I was exactly correct, Rocky.”
Your calculations for U are for 1 mole of gas.
Your calculations for volume are for 1 kg of gas.
Your calculations for the compressibility factor are nonsense as they are not unitless results.
You clearly don’t even understand how to maintain consistency throughout a given calculation.
You don’t even have enough common sense to recognize that anything with a compressibility factor over 200 would not be a gaseous state of matter.
You are wrong. Anyone can verify that fact.
“For my calculations, I was exactly correct, Rocky.”
Why does your calculation for the compressibility factor have units of mol/kg?
Why is YOUR calculation for energy for a mole of gas but your calculation for volume is for a kg?
Why did you claim that you were not using the ideal gas law when ALL of your results are from with the ideal gas law?
You can’t even maintain consistency throughout a detailed calculation.
You are both clueless and anti-science.