hurricanes during the ice age?

jwoodward48 wrote:
The energy within the Sun-Earth-space system does not decrease, correct.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: No gas adheres to Planck's Law because Planck's Law applies to black bodies, not gases.

Planck's uses an ideal blackbody as a "reference" but Planck's applies to everything, including gases, which is why all gases radiate per Planck's.

Were you saying you had an example of this not being the case?

I didn't think so. Go take a physics class.

Surface Detail wrote: Any textbook on radiative physics will tell you that.

Where does Planck's law mention "black body"? Oh, that's right. Planck's is a formal expression of a relationship. That whole block body reference is a conceptual aid to understanding that relationship but the relationship itself applies to everything, not to nothing.

So, let's have that example of a gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Surface Detail wrote:Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases.

Surface Detail wrote:It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon,

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

It's clear and straightforward.

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to be a moron.

Surface Detail wrote:Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases.

It applies. Where's your example?

Surface Detail wrote:It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon,

...and you'll show me everything except one example of what you claim.

Cough it up.


.

Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann, I have never claimed that any experiments have been performed to determine the applicability or otherwise of Planck's Law to gases...blah, blah, blah

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: No gas adheres to Planck's Law because Planck's Law applies to black bodies, not gases.

Planck's uses an ideal blackbody as a "reference" but Planck's applies to everything, including gases, which is why all gases radiate per Planck's.

Were you saying you had an example of this not being the case?

I didn't think so. Go take a physics class.

Surface Detail wrote: Any textbook on radiative physics will tell you that.

Where does Planck's law mention "black body"? Oh, that's right. Planck's is a formal expression of a relationship. That whole block body reference is a conceptual aid to understanding that relationship but the relationship itself applies to everything, not to nothing.

So, let's have that example of a gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: No gas adheres to Planck's Law because Planck's Law applies to black bodies, not gases.

Planck's uses an ideal blackbody as a "reference" but Planck's applies to everything, including gases, which is why all gases radiate per Planck's.

Were you saying you had an example of this not being the case?

I didn't think so. Go take a physics class.

Surface Detail wrote: Any textbook on radiative physics will tell you that.

Where does Planck's law mention "black body"? Oh, that's right. Planck's is a formal expression of a relationship. That whole block body reference is a conceptual aid to understanding that relationship but the relationship itself applies to everything, not to nothing.

So, let's have that example of a gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!

Then you've just taken away the ability of CO2 to radiate anything.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

Nope. There isn't a single spectral radiance term anywhere in the equation.

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to let your church control your mind.



.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann, I have never claimed that any experiments have been performed to determine the applicability or otherwise of Planck's Law to gases...blah, blah, blah

Your weaseling is annoying.

All this to get out of admitting that you know of no example of any gas not radiating according to Planck's,...

...which shoots down your assertion that Planck's does not apply,

... which forces you to acknowledge that the earth, with its atmosphere is a body,

... which forces you to acknowledge that the earth must adhere to Stefan-Boltzmann, which can be derived from Planck's,

... which blows your stupid "greenhouse effect" violation out of the water.

I consider your king tipped. The moment you start EVADING, you lose. I'm not going to waste my time further.



.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: No gas adheres to Planck's Law because Planck's Law applies to black bodies, not gases.

Planck's uses an ideal blackbody as a "reference" but Planck's applies to everything, including gases, which is why all gases radiate per Planck's.

Were you saying you had an example of this not being the case?

I didn't think so. Go take a physics class.

Surface Detail wrote: Any textbook on radiative physics will tell you that.

Where does Planck's law mention "black body"? Oh, that's right. Planck's is a formal expression of a relationship. That whole block body reference is a conceptual aid to understanding that relationship but the relationship itself applies to everything, not to nothing.

So, let's have that example of a gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!

Then you've just taken away the ability of CO2 to radiate anything.

CO2 can radiate, it just doesn't radiate from a surface.

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

They are circular arguments.

Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.

They are circular arguments.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.

jwoodward48 wrote:

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.

What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

Nope. There isn't a single spectral radiance term anywhere in the equation.

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to let your church control your mind.

I am completely and utterly stunned. How can you claim to know anything about Planck's Law if you get this wrong?

I should still listen, though. I'll hear you out. What does Planck's Law output? For reference:

Surface Detail wrote: Ha, ha, how hilarious! IbdaMann has been arguing the whole time that Planck's Law somehow applies to gases, when he obviously has no idea what Planck's Law actually states.

Surface Detail wrote: What an idiot!

jwoodward48 wrote: What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak,

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. This in turn means ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Ha, ha, how hilarious! IbdaMann has been arguing the whole time that Planck's Law somehow applies to gases, when he obviously has no idea what Planck's Law actually states.

I see you've shifted back to your ad hominem in defense of your religion.

So, you finally have an example of a gas that radiates in violation of Planck's?

Surface Detail wrote: What an idiot!

You can't come up with a single example therefore I'm an idiot.

Let me bask in your UK brilliance.

"greenhouse effect" is still FALSE. You're going to have to try something other than denying science.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak,

You don't know that. Gases are a good counterexample.

Surface Detail wrote:Yes he does, because he understands that the derivative of Planck's Law has only one turning point, hence only one peak.

Surface Detail wrote:Gases don't emit according to Planck's Law because they aren't black bodies.

Surface Detail wrote: They emit as isolated molecules.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Yes he does, because he understands that the derivative of Planck's Law has only one turning point, hence only one peak.

No he doesn't, Bozo, because neither of you understand what a function's domain is. It is extremely humorous to watch you insist otherwise.

The answer to your question lies in the reason you have no example of any gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Surface Detail wrote:Gases don't emit according to Planck's Law because they aren't black bodies.

You have demonstrated your religion-induced scientific illiteracy sufficiently that we can just assume it for your convenience, ... so you don't have to demonstrate it anymore.

Surface Detail wrote: They emit as isolated molecules.

Great! You have a very intellectually dishonest way of admitting that you were wrong. So are we done?

Is this your explanation of why you will never have an example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's?

Here's the big challenge: Will you write/post the words "Gases admittedly radiate according to Planck's" or is that just strictly prohibited by your faith?

Surface Detail wrote: Which fact is it that you dispute?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Which fact is it that you dispute?

I don't dispute facts. I dispel your delusions.

Planck's applies everywhere at all times. Only outside that does Planck's not apply. Your claims that science does not apply where your religion is concerned is as tired a refrain as it is absurd, but is apparently one that doesn't grow old for you.

Your idiocy is in confusing the radiation graph of something that does not exist with the applicability of Planck's to everything that exists. Part of the problem is that apparently your British education has left you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "applicability." Another part of the problem is that you are devoted to a WACKY religion that prohibits you from understanding basic concepts that put your faith in jeopardy. Why are you even asking questions about this topic if you are required to deny the science involved. Another part of the problem is that you have an insufficient understanding of basic math to read equations. How were you ever expecting to gain any traction in the discussion?

Have you noticed that you have no example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Let me guess, you haven't noticed ... or at least you won't admit to it. Your problem is right there. Your religion requires you to glorify the physics violation-riddled dogma, to not question the dogma and to not doubt any of the WACKY claims from your church, i.e. the very antithesis of science. In fact, science itself is to be denied ... through declarations of "non-applicability." It's no wonder you are scientifically illiterate.

Surface Detail wrote:It's a simple question. Which statement do you dispute?

1) Planck's Law applies solely to black bodies.
2) Gas is not a black body.
3) Both.

No need for another rant, but feel free if it makes you feel better. It would help if you'd answer the question, though, just so I know where you stand on the basics.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.

They are circular arguments.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.

Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:It's a simple question. Which statement do you dispute?

1) Planck's Law applies solely to black bodies.
2) Gas is not a black body.
3) Both.

No need for another rant, but feel free if it makes you feel better. It would help if you'd answer the question, though, just so I know where you stand on the basics.

Were you going to answer my question? I answered yours and you still ignored it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me thereafter, shame on me.

Reread my post(s). Go back to school.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.

This seems insufficient and vague. After all, a solid is mostly empty space. So is my hand. Why can't I put my hand, which is mostly empty space, through a metal bar, which is mostly empty space? Why can I put my hand into a liquid or a gas without resistance? After all, liquids have a surface that is obvious, just like a solid.

All have mass. Just what exactly is a 'surface' anyway?

jwoodward48 wrote:

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.

What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.

You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

Surface Detail wrote:Why don't you just answer my question?

Surface Detail wrote: Also, which question of yours have I ignored?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak,

You don't know that. Gases are a good counterexample.

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. This in turn means ...

...therefore it doesn't mean that.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Why don't you just answer my question?

I explained this to you as well. You apparently ignored that too, just to be thorough.

Surface Detail wrote: Also, which question of yours have I ignored?

Just the example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's per its temperature and wavelength. You insist that gases don't adhere to Planck's so you must have at least one example.

Once you get me that example I'll consider Planck's not applying to gases.

jwoodward48 wrote: Again, I do not mean "peak" as in "surrounded by points not in the domain". I mean "peak" as in either "local maximum", if f is continuous at that point, or:

a is defined to be the greatest point in the domain of f that is less than x. b is defined to be the smallest point in the domain of f that is greater than x. x is a peak if f(x) is strictly greater than both f(a) and f(b).

jwoodward48 wrote: But a better way of looking at this might be:

jwoodward48 wrote: You show a dire lack of understanding of logic.

jwoodward48 wrote: If the antecendent is false, that does not invalidate the statement "A => B".

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Again, I do not mean "peak" as in "surrounded by points not in the domain". I mean "peak" as in either "local maximum", if f is continuous at that point, or:

a is defined to be the greatest point in the domain of f that is less than x. b is defined to be the smallest point in the domain of f that is greater than x. x is a peak if f(x) is strictly greater than both f(a) and f(b).

False. What if your domain is discontinuous, i.e. in the case of gases?

jwoodward48 wrote: But a better way of looking at this might be:

Not at all. You only offer more convoluted ways of looking at it.

Just focus on Planck's. Focus on the domain of the gas in question. If you can't figure it out then perhaps you shouldn't be in this discussion.

jwoodward48 wrote: You show a dire lack of understanding of logic.

Bring it on baby, bring it on.

jwoodward48 wrote: If the antecendent is false, that does not invalidate the statement "A => B".

Now all you have to do is show where I have stated that an implication is rendered invalid by a false antecedent.

Hint: I never said that.

Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

Bring it on baby, bring it on.

[quote]IBdaMann: 1
jwoodward48: 0


.

jwoodward48 wrote: That is how I am defining peak in order to include discontinuous domains.

jwoodward48 wrote:I never said that you said the implication is rendered invalid.

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

No, it renders the conditional statement true. The consequent has not been rendered true or false.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: That is how I am defining peak in order to include discontinuous domains.

Then you have a hefty problem. Each and every discontinuous segment is going to have its own peak/local maximum. That adds up to more than one.

You're not going to be able to get around this one.

jwoodward48 wrote:I never said that you said the implication is rendered invalid.

You were using it as your example as to how I know nothing of logic.

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

IBdaMann: 2
jwoodward48: 0

jwoodward48 wrote:

Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

No, it renders the conditional statement true. The consequent has not been rendered true or false.

You don't lose a point here. You just need to brush up on your terminology.

"A -> B" is an implication
"A" is the antecedent
"B" is the consequent

If the antecedent is false, the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.


.