Remember me
▼ Content

Renewable Energy



Page 2 of 2<12
28-11-2018 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


When you do not understand what is being said I suggest you ask instead of making assumption. Particular really bad ones.

So you think fusion IS renewable??
Wake wrote:
Nuclear Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen - the most common material in the Universe, to Helium. The second most common material in the Universe. I neve said it was renewable - just that the materials necessary are so common that it could never been exhausted EVEN on Earth.

So you think fusion is not renewable?? Make up your mind dude! You just agreed with me!
Wake wrote:
The fusion on the Sun, like it or not is raining fusionable materials onto the Earth every day. The Earth's core has a very large percentage of fusionable materials and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter as well.

The Earth's core is warmed by fission, not fusion.
Wake wrote:
The processes which generate fossil fuels are so slow that we can adjudge them exhaustible.

Fossils don't burn, wake.

We can synthesize oil or natural gas in less than an hour from nothing more than CO2, hydrogen, lots of heat and lots of pressure. The Earth does the same thing.
Wake wrote:
Wind and solar have already been shown to be totally incapable of supporting a modern civilization.

True. Too many people just don't believe the math. It is still renewable energy though.
Wake wrote:
But don't let facts stand in the way of your dialog.

You just agreed with my arguments. What's your problem?


I don't know how long you can go with your ignorance. Tell us - why do we drill for oil if we can manufacture artificial oil and natural gas.

It's cheaper.
Wake wrote:
You continue to understand absolutely nothing while pretending to be some sort of expert.

I am an expert, Wake. I even have the certifications and licenses to prove it. Won't reveal them here of course. I am not going to reveal my identity to the likes of violent people like you.

I do not need my credentials to support my arguments here. It is YOU that is denying math and science.


A certified aircraft mechanic is not a scientist.

You don't even grasp what the Stefan-Boltzmann theory means despite throwing it about all the time as if it bore some sort of meaning to you. You don't understand spectrometry and continue to make your weird noises about not being able to measure temperature from space.. You are one whack job that closes your eyes and pretends that real science doesn't exist.

Most people would be ashamed of themselves for things like you say or even think but we don't have to worry about that ever happening to you.

And never fear - I don't start fights, I finish them. So even your "violent person" is nothing more than canned Pablum from someone with no credentials at all.
Edited on 28-11-2018 00:56
28-11-2018 02:03
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?
28-11-2018 02:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


When you do not understand what is being said I suggest you ask instead of making assumption. Particular really bad ones.

So you think fusion IS renewable??
Wake wrote:
Nuclear Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen - the most common material in the Universe, to Helium. The second most common material in the Universe. I neve said it was renewable - just that the materials necessary are so common that it could never been exhausted EVEN on Earth.

So you think fusion is not renewable?? Make up your mind dude! You just agreed with me!
Wake wrote:
The fusion on the Sun, like it or not is raining fusionable materials onto the Earth every day. The Earth's core has a very large percentage of fusionable materials and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter as well.

The Earth's core is warmed by fission, not fusion.
Wake wrote:
The processes which generate fossil fuels are so slow that we can adjudge them exhaustible.

Fossils don't burn, wake.

We can synthesize oil or natural gas in less than an hour from nothing more than CO2, hydrogen, lots of heat and lots of pressure. The Earth does the same thing.
Wake wrote:
Wind and solar have already been shown to be totally incapable of supporting a modern civilization.

True. Too many people just don't believe the math. It is still renewable energy though.
Wake wrote:
But don't let facts stand in the way of your dialog.

You just agreed with my arguments. What's your problem?


I don't know how long you can go with your ignorance. Tell us - why do we drill for oil if we can manufacture artificial oil and natural gas.

It's cheaper.
Wake wrote:
You continue to understand absolutely nothing while pretending to be some sort of expert.

I am an expert, Wake. I even have the certifications and licenses to prove it. Won't reveal them here of course. I am not going to reveal my identity to the likes of violent people like you.

I do not need my credentials to support my arguments here. It is YOU that is denying math and science.


A certified aircraft mechanic is not a scientist.

Science is not a scientist, Wake. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. I am much more than an aircraft mechanic.
Wake wrote:
You don't even grasp what the Stefan-Boltzmann theory means

I know exactly what it means.
Wake wrote:
despite throwing it about all the time as if it bore some sort of meaning to you.

You're just trying to deny it again.
Wake wrote:
You don't understand spectrometry

It has nothing to do with spectrometry.
Wake wrote:
and continue to make your weird noises about not being able to measure temperature from space..

You can't. Satellites measure light, not temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
You are one whack job that closes your eyes and pretends that real science doesn't exist.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. So is the Stefan-Boltzmann law which you deny.
Wake wrote:
Most people would be ashamed of themselves for things like you say or even think but we don't have to worry about that ever happening to you.

Getting angry again, I see.
Wake wrote:
And never fear - I don't start fights, I finish them. So even your "violent person" is nothing more than canned Pablum from someone with no credentials at all.

No, you start them. Your anger is obvious.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2018 19:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it. He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it. Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.
28-11-2018 20:15
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:
I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it.

I've looked through numerous posts on here... I haven't found one case where you have "proved" him wrong...

Wake wrote:He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it.

He has shown the math behind his assertions numerous times... you simply don't like it because it it doesn't support your AGW religion...

Wake wrote:Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

It is also a fallacy... Argument By Repetition Fallacy... here, you also commit the Inversion Fallacy.

Wake wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

And ITN is correct... one is not measuring global mean temperature using satellites...

Wake wrote:While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.

Ground based thermometers at least measure temperature... but even there, we are still unable to measure the earth's temperature...
28-11-2018 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors.

No, you have spent many hours denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it.

No, you have always been impolite and in denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it.

A lie. I have shown the math. You still do not get it.
Wake wrote:
Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry.

No, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with spectrometry.
Wake wrote:
An entire branch of detection science is based upon it.

Science is not a 'detection'. It is not an instrument. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space".

That's right. You can't. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

There is no way to measure the global temperature of Earth.
Wake wrote:
While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.

Thermometers are accurate to within fractions of a degree. Weather stations don't buy WalMart thermometers. The problem is that there simply not enough of them.

34=102 * x * y ^ 4

Determine the values of X and Y. Please show your work. The form of this equation is the same as the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming known values for 'radiance' and a fake 'SBconstant'.

If you can determine the values of X and Y you can determine the valiues of emissivity and temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Have at it, dude. Please show your work.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-11-2018 20:22
28-11-2018 23:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it.

I've looked through numerous posts on here... I haven't found one case where you have "proved" him wrong...

Wake wrote:He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it.

He has shown the math behind his assertions numerous times... you simply don't like it because it it doesn't support your AGW religion...

Wake wrote:Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

It is also a fallacy... Argument By Repetition Fallacy... here, you also commit the Inversion Fallacy.

Wake wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

And ITN is correct... one is not measuring global mean temperature using satellites...

Wake wrote:While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.

Ground based thermometers at least measure temperature... but even there, we are still unable to measure the earth's temperature...


Support MY AGM fallacy? By all means show me ANYWHERE where I have supported such a thing.

You and Nightmare still haven't got it do you? All you accomplish by using your totally inane misunderstanding of science is to give more weight to the True Believers and their religion of AGM.

Neither you nor Nightmare believe in the ability to measure temperature of a grey body or even a black body from a distance using spectroscopic response. And yet a large component of astronomy is dependent upon that.

That you think for one second that I would believe in AGW after providing long solid evidence against it demonstrates you have read nothing of what I've written or are far too stupid to understand it.

Or maybe you're in awe of Nightmare writing a moronic representation of the Stefan-Boltzman law when to find the total power radiated from an object, multiply by its surface area,

A: P = A j ^⋆ = A ε σ T ^ 4 . This was derived from thermodynamic principles in the 19th century and apparently you have caught up have you?

This has some exclusions but not the Earth and it's relatively low temperatures in and out. We can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible). The radiated energy IS Mean Global Temperature since you seem so unsure of it. And NASA's weather satellite program has shown no warming other than normal chaotic temperature changes for the entire length of the weather satellites starting in 1979.

I suggest you two morons make love with yourselves rather than blame others for your condition.
29-11-2018 02:31
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
But the difference is between how the temperature reading is used. The satellite gives a rough estimate of the entire body, including reflections from the atmosphere. We are being sold, that those temperature reading are an accurate representation of the surface temperature only, which changes constantly, depending on many factors. The surface of Earth isn't constant either, a lot of variations to effect a light-based measurement, of an accuracy. Kind of why we don't use laser based weapons, besides the power requirements to be destructive, clouds and reflective materials greatly reduce their effectiveness. Laser would have made a great missile defense, if they weren't only effective in sometimes, useless at other times.
29-11-2018 02:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it.

I've looked through numerous posts on here... I haven't found one case where you have "proved" him wrong...

Wake wrote:He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it.

He has shown the math behind his assertions numerous times... you simply don't like it because it it doesn't support your AGW religion...

Wake wrote:Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

It is also a fallacy... Argument By Repetition Fallacy... here, you also commit the Inversion Fallacy.

Wake wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

And ITN is correct... one is not measuring global mean temperature using satellites...

Wake wrote:While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.

Ground based thermometers at least measure temperature... but even there, we are still unable to measure the earth's temperature...


Support MY AGM fallacy? By all means show me ANYWHERE where I have supported such a thing.

There is no such thing as an AGM fallacy. gfm7175 never even mentioned one.
Wake wrote:
You and Nightmare still haven't got it do you? All you accomplish by using your totally inane misunderstanding of science is to give more weight to the True Believers and their religion of AGM.

Is this a religion I don't yet know about?? What is AGM?
Wake wrote:
Neither you nor Nightmare believe in the ability to measure temperature of a grey body or even a black body from a distance using spectroscopic response.
You can't. Spectroscopy doesn't measure temperature accurately.
Wake wrote:
And yet a large component of astronomy is dependent upon that.
Nope. None.
Wake wrote:
That you think for one second that I would believe in AGW after providing long solid evidence against it demonstrates you have read nothing of what I've written or are far too stupid to understand it.

You are a member of the Church of Global Warming. You have argued that carbon dioxide is capable of warming the Earth. You have also argued that water vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You have argued that both of these warm the Earth using nothing more than emitted infrared energy from the surface. Are you willing now to deny this? If so, you can never use that argument again.
Wake wrote:
Or maybe you're in awe of Nightmare writing a moronic representation of the Stefan-Boltzman law when to find the total power radiated from an object, multiply by its surface area,
A: P = A j ^⋆ = A ε σ T ^ 4 .

Nonsense. This is not even an equation. The equation for finding the power radiated from a surface is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states:
radiance=SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
Where radiance is in watts per square meter;
SBconstant is a constant of nature (basically to convert the equation to our units of measure),
emissivity (which is also the absorbtivity) is the inverse of the albedo of the surface, a measured constant, expressed as a fraction between zero (perfectly reflective, or an ideal white body) and one (perfectly emissive, or an ideal black body); and
temperature in deg Kelvin.
Wake wrote:
This was derived from thermodynamic principles in the 19th century and apparently you have caught up have you?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not derived from thermodynamics. It can be derived by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan2.html#c1. Initially the law was formulated by measurements made by Tyndall.
Wake wrote:
This has some exclusions

None. It applies to all bodies.
Wake wrote:
but not the Earth and it's relatively low temperatures in and out. We can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible).

Denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. It is not 'negligible'. You don't know what is reflected, and what is emitted by the Earth. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
The radiated energy IS Mean Global Temperature

Nope. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
102 = 34 * x * y^4. Please determine the values for X and Y. Please show your work.
Wake wrote:
since you seem so unsure of it. And NASA's weather satellite program has shown no warming other than normal chaotic temperature changes for the entire length of the weather satellites starting in 1979.

Weather satellites don't measure temperature, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2018 02:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
But the difference is between how the temperature reading is used. The satellite gives a rough estimate of the entire body, including reflections from the atmosphere. We are being sold, that those temperature reading are an accurate representation of the surface temperature only, which changes constantly, depending on many factors. The surface of Earth isn't constant either, a lot of variations to effect a light-based measurement, of an accuracy. Kind of why we don't use laser based weapons, besides the power requirements to be destructive, clouds and reflective materials greatly reduce their effectiveness. Laser would have made a great missile defense, if they weren't only effective in sometimes, useless at other times.


A satellite is utterly useless for measuring the absolute temperature of the Earth. Satellites can only measure light. They are not in contact with the Earth or it's atmosphere.

To convert a light reading into any idea of temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann law must be used. This is the law that Wake is denying. To use it, you first must know the emissivity of Earth. This is a measured constant. To measure it, you first must accurately know the temperature of the Earth.

This is the chicken and egg problem that Wake can't see. You can't know temperature without knowing emissivity. You can't measure the emissivity without first knowing the temperature.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2018 11:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it. He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it. Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.


It is sad and frustrating. Dealing the religious alarmist crowd who have chosen their religion of CAGW before thinking about the subject is the same as deal with the purely anti-science or even anti-reality or possibly the schizophrenic who, at random I think, ave chosen to be the anti-CAGW identity.
29-11-2018 20:11
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it. He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it. Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.


It is sad and frustrating. Dealing the religious alarmist crowd who have chosen their religion of CAGW before thinking about the subject is the same as deal with the purely anti-science or even anti-reality or possibly the schizophrenic who, at random I think, ave chosen to be the anti-CAGW identity.


I can deal with the anti-reality AGM True Believers. I have a lot of trouble with someone that would throw around terms like Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then say that you can't measure the Earth's MGT from space. HELLO - the ENTIRE MEANING OF THE STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW is that you can.
29-11-2018 22:34
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
It can only give a rough estimate, since the planet isn't an 'idea' object, like a 'black body', not to mention you can not get direct line-of-sight to the surface, the atmosphere distorts the picture of the surface, which isn't uniform, or of the same material. No way they can measure any temperature, with a resolution consistent with the predictions. Lot of stuff looks good on paper, math works good, but doesn't work when used in the physical world.
29-11-2018 23:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it. He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it. Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.


It is sad and frustrating. Dealing the religious alarmist crowd who have chosen their religion of CAGW before thinking about the subject is the same as deal with the purely anti-science or even anti-reality or possibly the schizophrenic who, at random I think, ave chosen to be the anti-CAGW identity.


I can deal with the anti-reality AGM True Believers. I have a lot of trouble with someone that would throw around terms like Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then say that you can't measure the Earth's MGT from space. HELLO - the ENTIRE MEANING OF THE STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW is that you can.

Nope. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

102 = 34 * x * y ^ 4
Please determine the values for X and Y. Show your work.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 00:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It can only give a rough estimate,

It can't even do that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
since the planet isn't an 'idea' object, like a 'black body',
You mean 'ideal'. The ideal black body and the ideal white body are reference points, not actual bodies. All real bodies are 'grey' bodies. They fall somewhere in between the two reference points. This value is represented by the emissivity constant in the equation and is expressed simply as a percentage somewhere between these two reference points. Emissivity is a measured constant. You first have to accurately know the temperature of the body to be able to measure it's emissivity.
HarveyH55 wrote:
not to mention you can not get direct line-of-sight to the surface, the atmosphere distorts the picture of the surface, which isn't uniform, or of the same material.
Actually, this not a factor. The atmosphere is part of Earth. Yes, this means the atmosphere has radiance, and it does.
HarveyH55 wrote:
No way they can measure any temperature, with a resolution consistent with the predictions. Lot of stuff looks good on paper, math works good, but doesn't work when used in the physical world.

Not even Wake's math looks good. He is constantly trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law in some way (usually by attempting to eliminate the emissivity term or by adding a frequency term).

He also attempts to use Wien's law as if it was the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Unfortunately, Wein's law doesn't tell you the temperature of anything all that accurately. It's useful for approximations, but it's a lousy thermometer. Welders, for example, use the color of the glowing metal to roughly gauge the temperature it's at. It they need to be accurate (for example in a steel mill when they are mixing alloys), they use a thermometer (a specially built one designed for that high temperature).

Wien's law is what he is trying to refer to when discussing the temperatures of stars. In that approximation, it's only good to several hundred degrees of accuracy.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law, on the other hand calculates the intensity of light radiated by a body against its temperature. It's quite accurate, but ONLY if you know the emissivity of that body (it's ability to absorb and emit light, or it's reflectivity).

Light striking a body such as the Earth is some absorbed, some reflected, some refracted, and some just passes right through the thing like it wasn't even there. The portion that was absorbed is also the portion that can be emitted. When you look at light coming from the Earth, don't know how much is by emission, by reflections, refractions, or just lost due to transparency. Only the amount that is emitted means anything for determining temperature by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All this light bouncing around also makes Wien's law useless for us. You are measuring a reflection of the sunlight, not the temperature of the Earth by using Wein's law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-11-2018 00:11
30-11-2018 01:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it. He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it. Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.


It is sad and frustrating. Dealing the religious alarmist crowd who have chosen their religion of CAGW before thinking about the subject is the same as deal with the purely anti-science or even anti-reality or possibly the schizophrenic who, at random I think, ave chosen to be the anti-CAGW identity.


I can deal with the anti-reality AGM True Believers. I have a lot of trouble with someone that would throw around terms like Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then say that you can't measure the Earth's MGT from space. HELLO - the ENTIRE MEANING OF THE STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW is that you can.

Nope. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

102 = 34 * x * y ^ 4
Please determine the values for X and Y. Show your work.


And yet another pretense that science started with the birth of Nightmare. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law was formulated in the 1800's.

It is the ardent belief of Nightmare that all of the scientists involved in all of the uses of Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law were complete idiots. That they didn't make actual measurements of the surface and increasing altitude temperatures. That they didn't form a good average emissivity and albedo long long ago. Because to Nightmare nothing could have ever occurred without him telling people whether it was possible or not.

Now many nations have launched vehicles all the way into open space and measured temperatures all the way. We have MILLIONS of data points and with those the emissivity of the Earth is completely known. Discounting Albedo it is about 88.5% that of a black body.

Nightmare must grow very tired of being wrong all the time.
30-11-2018 05:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake... you give A LOT of "you don't understand" mantras, yet you never SHOW him where he is "wrong"... Care to show where he is wrong?


I have spent hours proving his errors. Initially I was polite and informative and he would simply deny it. He could not show ANY math to prove it but he could say it. Over time I simply became tired of repeating it and don't have much interest of attempting to teach someone who has no intentions of learning anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant PROVES the science of spectrometry. An entire branch of detection science is based upon it. And again and again you'll read Nightmare writing - "You cannot tell the temperature of the earth from space". In fact this is the ONLY way of accurately measuring global mean temperature.

While there are errors caused by many things, these errors are infinitesimal compared to using ground based thermometers.


It is sad and frustrating. Dealing the religious alarmist crowd who have chosen their religion of CAGW before thinking about the subject is the same as deal with the purely anti-science or even anti-reality or possibly the schizophrenic who, at random I think, ave chosen to be the anti-CAGW identity.


I can deal with the anti-reality AGM True Believers. I have a lot of trouble with someone that would throw around terms like Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then say that you can't measure the Earth's MGT from space. HELLO - the ENTIRE MEANING OF THE STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW is that you can.

Nope. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

102 = 34 * x * y ^ 4
Please determine the values for X and Y. Show your work.


And yet another pretense that science started with the birth of Nightmare. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law was formulated in the 1800's.

Never said it wasn't.
Wake wrote:
It is the ardent belief of Nightmare that all of the scientists involved in all of the uses of Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law were complete idiots.
Never said they were.
Wake wrote:
That they didn't make actual measurements of the surface and increasing altitude temperatures.
They did. Not enough to determine the temperature of the Earth though.
Wake wrote:
That they didn't form a good average emissivity

You have to know the temperature of the Earth to know the emissivity of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
and albedo long long ago.
Albedo is the inverse of emissivity, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Because to Nightmare nothing could have ever occurred without him telling people whether it was possible or not.

You are just showing your anger again. You really need to get some kind of control over your temper.
Wake wrote:
Now many nations have launched vehicles all the way into open space and measured temperatures all the way.
Not enough to measure the temperature of the Earth, Wake.
Wake wrote:
We have MILLIONS of data points and with those the emissivity of the Earth is completely known. Discounting Albedo it is about 88.5% that of a black body.
How many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth, Wake? BTW, Albedo is the inverse of emissivity. You don't know the emissivity of Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 19:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:Albedo is the inverse of emissivity, Wake.


I would like people to just look at that and see exactly what Nightmare knows.
30-11-2018 20:08
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Albedo is the inverse of emissivity, Wake.


I would like people to just look at that and see exactly what Nightmare knows.


More than Wake does about this topic, obviously...
30-11-2018 21:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Albedo is the inverse of emissivity, Wake.


I would like people to just look at that and see exactly what Nightmare knows.


Fine. Since you seem unable to understand this concept, let met enlighten you (and any others that are reading).

The albedo of something is a measure of its reflectivity. So is emissivity and absorptivity.

Emissivity is the same value as absorptivity. The albedo is the inverse of these.

If something can absorb light better, it can also emit light better. If something is very reflective, it also is not very good at emitting light. This emitted light is known as the 'incident' light. It is the light that is not part of any reflection, refraction, or transparency pass-thru.

An ideal black body is perfectly good at absorbing light. It is also perfectly good at emitting light. This is an albedo of zero. Such a body reflects no light.

An ideal white body is a perfectly good reflector. It absorbs no light. It also emits no light. This is an albedo of one. It is perfectly reflective.

All real bodies fall somewhere in between. The so-called 'gray' bodies. They have an albedo somewhere between zero and one (expressed as a percentage of reflected light to incident light). The emissivity (and absorptivity) values are the inverse. They are expressed as a percentage of incident light to reflected light.

In the Stefan-Boltzmann law, there is a constant for emissivity. This is a measured value. To measure the emissivity (and therefore the albedo) of any surface, you must first know accurately the temperature of the surface. You compare a light intensity reading against an ideal black body at that temperature. The difference is the emissivity.

Instruments like infrared cameras and various satellites are calibrated against a 50% gray card of a known temperature. This makes them useful for comparative temperature readings, such as looking for holes in housing insulation or finding a dead cylinder on a reciprocating engine, but these instruments cannot measure an absolute temperature. The sort of guess at it, since there is a lot of vegetation in a typical scene, that has an emissivity fairly close to the 50% gray card.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Thus, the albedo of Earth is unknown. The only way to find these values is to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth, then use that to compare the light emitted from the Earth as compared to an ideal black body at that temperature.

In other words, you first have to know the temperature of the Earth before you can use satellite to measure the temperature of the Earth. It's a chicken and egg problem.

We don't have enough thermometers to actually measure the temperature of the Earth. This is a statistical result, and there is simply not enough thermometers built to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. Temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-11-2018 21:55
01-12-2018 19:18
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
What we need more of is statements like that from Nightmare. Albedo is the amount of energy reflected off a body from, in this case, the Sun. Emissivity is the reflection of the energy that got through to the lower atmosphere and ocean and land and was then emitted again. The famous creature of science that believes that these terms are opposite strikes again. Oh, yeah, he also thinks that over 100 years of direct measurements of the emissivity of the Earth never happened. He almost came to tears when it was pointed out that the coefficients used in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law are known and have been known since man went into space.
01-12-2018 20:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
What we need more of is statements like that from Nightmare. Albedo is the amount of energy reflected off a body from, in this case, the Sun.
Nope. Albedo is a ratio.
Wake wrote:
Emissivity is the reflection of the energy that got through to the lower atmosphere and ocean and land and was then emitted again.

Nope. Emissivity (and absorptivity) is a ratio. It is the inverse of the ratio of Albedo.
Wake wrote:
The famous creature of science that believes that these terms are opposite strikes again.

Again?? This is the first time I've mentioned it to you, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Oh, yeah, he also thinks that over 100 years of direct measurements of the emissivity of the Earth never happened.
They didn't.
Wake wrote:
He almost came to tears when it was pointed out that the coefficients used in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law are known and have been known since man went into space.

What 'coefficients' are you talking about, Wake? Are you trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law again?


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2018 20:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Nightmare, I'm simply not going to respond to your ignorance any longer. You can talk to the wall. What coefficients indeed!
02-12-2018 21:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Nightmare, I'm simply not going to respond to your ignorance any longer. You can talk to the wall. What coefficients indeed!


Okay. I'll consider your argument discarded by you.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Renewable Energy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 04:19
My list of recommended renewable energy technologies2707-10-2017 00:17
Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources4610-01-2017 04:31
Shale gas alone is not the answer – but neither is renewable energy026-09-2013 06:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact