Argumentum ex fitque

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Argumentum ex fitque > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

23-09-2016 17:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: The graph of intensity vs. wavelength that I just posted for neon illustrates that neon does not radiate according to Planck's law. No it does not. Your graph does not support your wild conclusion, despite your insistence. Of course it does. How could the continuous function that constitutes Planck's law possibly give the series of peaks making up the neon spectrum? That's possibly the daftest thing you've come out with yet. You are, of course, referring to the continuous line of the ideal black body that doesn't exist, yes? You are, of course, referring to gases that are not ideal black bodies, correct? I just reviewed Planck's law and I didn't find anything that indicates a requirement for all frequencies to be radiated by non-ideal bodies. What I found was the requirement that all energy absorbed must be radiated away. Is that what you see when you look at Planck's? Let me know if you'd like to review it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 18:23
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: The graph of intensity vs. wavelength that I just posted for neon illustrates that neon does not radiate according to Planck's law. No it does not. Your graph does not support your wild conclusion, despite your insistence. Of course it does. How could the continuous function that constitutes Planck's law possibly give the series of peaks making up the neon spectrum? That's possibly the daftest thing you've come out with yet. You are, of course, referring to the continuous line of the ideal black body that doesn't exist, yes? You are, of course, referring to gases that are not ideal black bodies, correct? I just reviewed Planck's law and I didn't find anything that indicates a requirement for all frequencies to be radiated by non-ideal bodies. What I found was the requirement that all energy absorbed must be radiated away. Is that what you see when you look at Planck's? Let me know if you'd like to review it. This is Planck's law: It gives the intensity of radiation emitted by a black body as a continuous function of temperature and wavelength. Gases radiate at discrete wavelengths and therefore do not radiate in accordance with Planck's law. Do you understand this?
23-09-2016 18:24
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	What the hell, IB. What the goddamn hell. Planck's Law describes the spectral density of black body radiation. That is, it states how much radiation will be at 400 um if a black body is radiating at 270 K, ignoring the effect of size and distance. I thought you knew this. Guess I was right not to take notes. Edited on 23-09-2016 18:26
23-09-2016 20:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: It gives the intensity of radiation emitted by a black body as a continuous function of temperature and wavelength. That is NOT what it states. Are you telling me that you can look directly at it and NOT understand what it is telling you? I am so glad that I was not subjected to your UK "education." I prefer to be able to understand those functions I see. Does the UK education system have math courses? Would it have been so difficult to just ask for help in interpreting Planck's? If you had done so a year ago I wouldn't need to spend time explaining it now. Planck's is a falsifiable model. It predicts the energy of radiation given a wavelength and a temperature. Ergo, if you want to show that Planck's is false then just find one example of a gas or any other substance that radiates at a different energy for its temperature and the wavelength it is radiating than what Planck's says it will radiate at that temperature and wavelength. Just ... one ... example ... in ... nature. So grab your favorite spectrograph, pick a wavelength of emission, find out the temperature and the energy thus radiated at that wavelength and run the numbers through Planck's. If they differ beyond instrumentation tolerances then you have a winner. You will have shown Planck's to be false. Learn some math. Oh, and "math" has no 's' on the end. Just because a word ends in 's' doesn't make it a discrete plural. Mathematics is not a discrete plural, nor is calculus, nor is hagus, nor is fuss, chess, bus, etc. I know you Brits somehow learned that math needs to be "maths" but I guess that's part of your British education system. Maybe if they had focused more on actual math and less on going down the rabbit hole of mistakenly deciding it is a discrete plural you might be able to correctly read a function. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 20:43
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Maths is an abbreviation. It doesn't have to make sense. Dick/Richard makes no sense either.

23-09-2016 21:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: Maths is an abbreviation. It doesn't have to make sense. Dick/Richard makes no sense either. I threw that in there to give Surface Detail some weasel room to EVADE the entire rest of my post. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 22:01
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Can you even do that, though? Spectrographs don't say how far away from the object they were measured at, nor how many square angles the measurement device took up.
23-09-2016 22:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote:Can you even do that, though? Spectrographs don't say how far away from the object they were measured at, nor how many square angles the measurement device took up. It would have to be more than just a standard spectrograph. That is part of my point. Surface Detail drew conclusions without sufficient information. In the US, our standard tests include multiple choice questions whose possible answers include "insufficient information." Perhaps the UK system doesn't have that. In any event, if you are going to test Planck's then you need to be able to measure the E that Planck's computes as a test. All Surface Detail wanted to provide were the wavelengths of a particular substance and incorrectly base his test on whether all the frequencies were radiated, not the E of the wavelengths that were radiated. Maybe analysis isn't covered in the UK either. Do we have any other Brits who could answer whether the UK doesn't cover these things or whether Surface Detail just didn't pay attention? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 22:31
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	That's a good point. I think I'll look for some data.
23-09-2016 22:50
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Planck's is a falsifiable model. It predicts the energy of radiation given a wavelength and a temperature. Ergo, if you want to show that Planck's is false then just find one example of a gas or any other substance that radiates at a different energy for its temperature and the wavelength it is radiating than what Planck's says it will radiate at that temperature and wavelength. Just ... one ... example ... in ... nature. So grab your favorite spectrograph, pick a wavelength of emission, find out the temperature and the energy thus radiated at that wavelength and run the numbers through Planck's. If they differ beyond instrumentation tolerances then you have a winner. You will have shown Planck's to be false. Well, the obvious and most relevant example would be the Earth. Assuming a surface temperature of 290K, Planck's law tells us that for a wavelength of 15 um it should have a spectral radiance of 134 mW/m2/sr/cm-1. However, satellite measurements (see below) show that it is only radiating at about 50 mW/m2/sr/cm-1 at this wavelength. This corresponds to a black body temperature of about 225K. At a wavelength of 12 um, though, it is radiating much more strongly, corresponding to a black body temperature of over 280K. The satellite measurements therefore demonstrate that the Earth is not radiating in accordance with Planck's law. Which isn't at all surprising, given that greenhouse gases are absorbing some of the outgoing radiation. Edit: I hope you understand the graph. The solid line represents the measured spectral radiance of the Earth at different wavelengths. The dotted lines represent what the radiance of black bodies with the labelled temperatures would be at different wavelengths. It should be pretty obvious that the Earth doesn't radiate as a black body i.e. doesn't radiate in accordance with Planck's law. Edited on 23-09-2016 23:03
23-09-2016 22:51
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	[img]http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg [/img] Something went wrong with your image. Edit: nvm, the problem went away on its own. Edited on 23-09-2016 22:52
23-09-2016 22:52
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	The Earth isn't a substance, Surface. That's cheating. Edited on 23-09-2016 22:57
23-09-2016 22:56
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	jwoodward48 wrote: [img]http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg [/img] Something went wrong with your image. Edit: nvm, the problem went away on its own. There was a space at the end of the URL!
24-09-2016 01:50
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	That's not the spectrum for a substance. That's the spectrum for many substances. Surface, at least try to respond to their actual points. Can you give an example of a single substance with even a single wavelength of radiation that doesn't follow Planck's Law? (And we aren't considering the case of "no radiation", as IB said.) For all your talk, you've never actually shown anything like that. Edited on 24-09-2016 02:05
24-09-2016 03:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: Well, the obvious and most relevant example would be the Earth. sigh where to begin? Please keep in mind that your example does nothing to isolate thermal radiation and leaves it mixed with thermal conduction and thermal convection. Your graph depicts more or less what I would expect to see. I wouldn't expect a perfect ideal blackbody curve. We acknowledge that some gases in the armosphere absorb certain frequencies more and thus change the form of the energy at those frequencies. When we place a satellite atop the atmosphere we then expect "holes" or "shallow points" where certain wavelengths are converted by the atmosphere before being read by the sensor on the satellite. We expect convection to futher distribute energy around thus changing temperatures at different points, altering the emission. Surface Detail wrote:Assuming a surface temperature of 290K Why? When the numbers don't add up, our first conclusion will be that we assumed the incorrect temperature. Also, the global average temperature ceases to be important when you are calculating emission from a specific point which will be determined by the specific temperature of that point. There are more problems but that should be enough for now. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

24-09-2016 04:02
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Just playing Warmist's Advocate here ( ), but wouldn't we expect the spectrum to have higher values than expected at some points if that's true?
24-09-2016 04:03
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Wait, no, I know the answer. We can't tell where the spectrum would be without the atmosphere, so we can't tell if certain parts are elevated.
24-09-2016 04:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: Just playing Warmist's Advocate here ( ), but wouldn't we expect the spectrum to have higher values than expected at some points if that's true? Some of them might very well be higher, having been increased. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2016 04:34
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	See my previous post. I realized that myself! Thanks for explaining, though.
25-09-2016 23:23
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Well, the obvious and most relevant example would be the Earth. sigh where to begin? Please keep in mind that your example does nothing to isolate thermal radiation and leaves it mixed with thermal conduction and thermal convection. Your graph depicts more or less what I would expect to see. I wouldn't expect a perfect ideal blackbody curve. We acknowledge that some gases in the armosphere absorb certain frequencies more and thus change the form of the energy at those frequencies. When we place a satellite atop the atmosphere we then expect "holes" or "shallow points" where certain wavelengths are converted by the atmosphere before being read by the sensor on the satellite. Wow. Aside from your rather cryptic remark about conduction and convection (the satellites are in space), that's just about spot on. Yes, the atmosphere does indeed absorb certain frequencies to give "holes" or "shallow points" at certain wavelengths. This is the greenhouse effect in action! Without greenhouse gases, you wouldn't see these holes. Now we're getting somewhere!
26-09-2016 01:06
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	No, he's not "spot on" with respect to your Superb British Education. He said that the gases "change the form of the energy". They radiate as black bodies and thus distribute the energy that they absorb over the entire spectrum - but all of the energy goes to space, amiright?
26-09-2016 05:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote:This is the greenhouse effect in action! Nope. Your British education has come up short on semantics. An "effect" is the result of a process, not the process itself. Only the process, however, can be "in action." Are you asserting that because different gases absorb different wavelengths that the 1st LoT is therefore violated and more energy is created? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 06:30
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Wait... I'm not sure if you can use the 1st to support you. I'm a bit worried, in fact. A molecule of CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, right? And sometimes, absorbed energy will be re-radiated? And that radiation will have a random direction, right? Then CO2 prevents some energy from going to space. It reduces the rate of energy emission. The photon that would have gone to space was absorbed, and another photon which otherwise would not be hitting the Earth - is! Wouldn't this cause GW? Edited on 26-09-2016 06:31
26-09-2016 14:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote:Wait... I'm not sure if you can use the 1st to support you. I'm a bit worried, in fact. I'm intrigued. Go on... jwoodward48 wrote: A molecule of CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, right? The fact remains that I have never personally observed a single CO2 molecule absorb any radiation but I ALWAYS grant the premise for the sake of argument. It's just the kind of guy I am. CO2 absorbs a certain amount of electromagnetic energy and converts it to an equivalent amount of thermal energy, per the 1st LoT: exactly the same amount of energy. jwoodward48 wrote:And sometimes, absorbed energy will be re-radiated? <weaseling flag raised> Will it be "re-radiated" or just "radiated"? The word "re-radiated" comes loaded with a whole lot of additional baggage. jwoodward48 wrote: And that radiation will have a random direction, right? A certain amount of the molecule's thermal energy will convert to EM and will radiate, per Planck's. jwoodward48 wrote: Then CO2 prevents some energy from going to space. No. Why do you say that? Are you going to account for every photon? One more time: Stefan-Boltzmann says that what you are describing simply does not happen. ----- Back to your original point: Are you assuming a resulting increase in temperature in your scenario? If "yes" then you are assuming an increase in energy. Temperature is a measure of energy. Account for it. At what point is the 1st LoT violated and some quantity of energy somehow created? ----- jwoodward48 wrote: It reduces the rate of energy emission. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that if the emission decreases then the temperature has decreased. Is that what you are asserting, i.e. that the earth's temperature has decreased? jwoodward48 wrote: The photon that would have gone to space was absorbed, and another photon which otherwise would not be hitting the Earth - is! So are these new, spontaneously created photons in violation of the 1st LoT or are they taken from somewhere else, thus cooling where they had been previously? jwoodward48 wrote:Wouldn't this cause GW? If the total sum of energy is still exactly the same, then by definition the temperature is exactly the same. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 14:59
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	1. I didn't mean to weasel. I just meant that sometimes the energy of radiation will be converted into energy within a molecule, and that sometimes the opposite occurs. 2. If CO2 is absorbing some energy, and some of that energy is going back to the Earth... Does it just pass through? Does it curve around? Or does it hit the Earth? 3. That means that not all the energy went to space. Some of it stayed in the Earth system. Right? 4. If outflow is decreased while inflow remains the same, the temperature MUST increase. 1st Law. 5. Ah, but therein lies the rub - SB appears to be violated, but maybe it is okay because... Maybe it's like the IGL? Exoplanets have non-black body spectra... Why would SB be applied to systems that Planck can't apply to? 6. So SB would imply that if T and e are held constant, outflow cannot decrease. Can the outflow of the Earth system decrease if both T and e are constant?
26-09-2016 15:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: 1. I didn't mean to weasel. I wasn't accusing you of intentionally weaseling. I saw the word "re-radiated" and knew right away that you simply picked up that term from some other warmizombie. Weasels intentionally inject words into their arguments to which they fully intend to give multiple, distinct meanings. Within the same argument they will use the word under one meaning and in the next sentence use the word under the distinctly different meaning. The classic example is "trap" as in "trap heat." Just to get the word accepted into the argument, "trap" will be used to mean simply "the molecule ABSORBS a photon." Then later it will be used to mean that the molecule does not radiate away thermal energy. When you protest, the weasel will proclaim that it is too late, that you already agreed that certain molecules "trap" heat and that you can't flip-flop now! Some years back I debated the topic on a political website in which I asked that the word "re-radiated" not be used in place of just "radiated" because EM is absorbed at one frequency and amplitude and is later radiated at some other frequency per Planck's, i.e. it is NOT the original EM simply being "re-radiated." The weasel insisted that I had to accept the term "re-radiated" because in this particular case the absorption frequency and the emission frequency were both in the IR band ... nevermind that the IR band is e . x . t . r . e . m . e . l . y . * . b . r . o . a . d. I told him that I wouldn't accept the term "re-radiated" because that is not what is happening. He didn't care because he was convinced that he had climate scientists on his side. He then did exactly what I anticipated. He shifted semantics to treating GHGs as power amplifiers that "re-radiate" the energy like repeaters do to an electronic signal and thus created additional energy in violation of the 1st LoT. Oh well. Since then, I have kept an eye out for arguments using the word "re-radiate" instead of the simpler (and logically intuitive) word "radiate" or "emit." It turns out that the word "re-radiate" has become quite popular amongst warmizombies and is now officially included in the WACKY religious dogma. When I saw you use the word, I simply raised the weasel flag, that's all. jwoodward48 wrote: 2. If CO2 is absorbing some energy, and some of that energy is going back to the Earth... Does it just pass through? Does it curve around? Or does it hit the Earth? You have asked this question many different times in many different ways. Half the time I answer with Stefan-Boltzmann. The other half I answer with the 1st LoT. This time we'll let you answer the question. Let's assume a "before GHG" scenario in which the sun warms the earth and IR photons then radiate away, thus cooling the earth. In the "after GHG" scenario, there are MORE photons radiating away from the earth and there is more cooling that would not have happened otherwise. If Global Cooling is accelerating then I want to know? jwoodward48 wrote: 4. If outflow is decreased while inflow remains the same, the temperature MUST increase. 1st Law. If outflow remains the same while inflow remains the same then temperature must remain the same. 1st LoT. If outflow remains the same then inflow has remained the same. Stefan-Boltzmann. jwoodward48 wrote:5. Why would SB be applied to systems that Planck can't apply to? You can always apply Planck's, it's just a little more complicated. Stefan-Boltzmann can be derived from Planck's. Stefan-Boltzmann is much simpler and its clarity makes things obvious, like the correct answers to your questions. jwoodward48 wrote: 6. So SB would imply that if T and e are held constant, outflow cannot decrease. Correct (assuming "e" is the incoming energy). jwoodward48 wrote:Can the outflow of the Earth system decrease if both T and e are constant? Never, according to Stefan-Boltzmann, assuming "e" is the incoming energy. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 20:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Well, the obvious and most relevant example would be the Earth. sigh where to begin? Please keep in mind that your example does nothing to isolate thermal radiation and leaves it mixed with thermal conduction and thermal convection. Your graph depicts more or less what I would expect to see. I wouldn't expect a perfect ideal blackbody curve. We acknowledge that some gases in the armosphere absorb certain frequencies more and thus change the form of the energy at those frequencies. When we place a satellite atop the atmosphere we then expect "holes" or "shallow points" where certain wavelengths are converted by the atmosphere before being read by the sensor on the satellite. Wow. Aside from your rather cryptic remark about conduction and convection (the satellites are in space), that's just about spot on. Yes, the atmosphere does indeed absorb certain frequencies to give "holes" or "shallow points" at certain wavelengths. This is the greenhouse effect in action! Without greenhouse gases, you wouldn't see these holes. Now we're getting somewhere! You can have holes without any 'greenhouse' effect going on at all. Any particular frequency that happens to be absorbed is simply converted to thermal energy (or chemical action). It does nothing to change the amount of energy leaving. The energy converted into thermal energy is simply leaving as another frequency of light. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-09-2016 20:34
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	But what if that light travels down instead of up?
26-09-2016 21:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: But what if that light travels down instead of up? No difference. The lower energy light cannot heat a higher energy surface. It's just a different way of looking at the conservation of energy laws. You can look at the classic way (using just the laws of thermodynamics and kinetic energy), or you can look at the quantum way (by involving Planck's law and the S-B law). Either way you come up against the same thing. You cannot make heat flow backwards. You cannot make energy flow backwards (not without putting energy into it from somewhere else, and no, you cannot use the sun for this). Once energy is dissipated, it's dissipated. Gathering it up again takes work. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-09-2016 21:50
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	1. Why not the Sun? 2. But what HAPPENS to the photon that goes down? Either it heats the Earth or it doesn't. If it doesn't - where did its energy go?

26-09-2016 21:55
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Here's a good analogy for my understanding of the GH effect: Imagine that you are standing in a room. The room is at 1K. You will freeze. No, let's have it be THC. He said I couldn't. Well who's laughing now? So we have Tai quickly freezing to DEATH. But before that happens, I change the temperature to just below his current body temperature. He will heat up. He will heat up BEYOND THE AIR TEMPERATURE. Internal energy source or external energy source unaffected by GHG, same difference.
26-09-2016 22:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: 2. But what HAPPENS to the photon that goes down? You should write a story about him. Inquiring minds want to know. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 23:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Why not the Sun? 2. But what HAPPENS to the photon that goes down? Either it heats the Earth or it doesn't. If it doesn't - where did its energy go? If the molecule it happens to hit has a higher energy state, the photon will not be absorbed. It is reflected away. Once an molecule is in a particular energy state, adding additional photons of that same color will not make it go into a higher energy state. You need a different color for that. If the molecule happens to be in a relaxed state, and if the conditions are right, it will absorb the photon. Remember that heat by radiation is not only way to heat. Remember also that CO2 is not the only gas putting out photons because of its temperature. Any mass above absolute zero puts out photons. That includes gases. I don't include the sun because it is not being used to gather up the dissipated energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-09-2016 00:03
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Something seems... off about that. Are you sure that every molecule in the Earth is already "saturated" with longwave radiation?
27-09-2016 01:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: Something seems... off about that. Are you sure that every molecule in the Earth is already "saturated" with longwave radiation? It's absolutely dripping in longwave, and don't get me started on how the oceans are so drenched in longwave that you can swim in it all. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 01:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Something seems... off about that. Are you sure that every molecule in the Earth is already "saturated" with longwave radiation? They don't have to be. Remember the analogy of the six gun vs the firing squad? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-09-2016 01:31
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Heh. Last day, I almost drowned in the shortwave. And you're complaining about the longwave? First world problems.
27-09-2016 01:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: Heh. Last day, I almost drowned in the shortwave. And you're complaining about the longwave? First world problems. Good one! Love it! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 01:51
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: Something seems... off about that. Are you sure that every molecule in the Earth is already "saturated" with longwave radiation? They don't have to be. Remember the analogy of the six gun vs the firing squad? ...no? Could you give a non-firearm reference? I am not a gun person. "Heads on a science Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist IBdaMann wrote: No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that. I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
27-09-2016 02:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: Something seems... off about that. Are you sure that every molecule in the Earth is already "saturated" with longwave radiation? They don't have to be. Remember the analogy of the six gun vs the firing squad? ...no? Could you give a non-firearm reference? I am not a gun person. Ok. We'll choose a less technical form of ballistics. Try to stop an oncoming car by throwing grains of sand at it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate Argumentum ex fitque: