Work and Heat

Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?

Nothing.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?

Nothing.

...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

James___ wrote:
...It's always possible he's realized that science can explain things without it being overly complicated. With the earth's emissivity I think it does go beyond the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. All that means is that a variable would need to be added to make it planet/star specific. I'm not sure if people in here would want to get that much into things. That's where the energy we consume for performing work is about the 10 w/m^2. That's something better solar panels could help with. So the solution then would be improved technology which would create more jobs.

James___ wrote:
...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?

Nothing.

He is not discussing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and neither are you.You both deny that law.

...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

James___ wrote:
...It's always possible he's realized that science can explain things without it being overly complicated.

James___ wrote:
With the earth's emissivity I think it does go beyond the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

James___ wrote:
All that means is that a variable would need to be added to make it planet/star specific.

James___ wrote:
I'm not sure if people in here would want to get that much into things.

James___ wrote:
That's where the energy we consume for performing work is about the 10 w/m^2. That's something better solar panels could help with. So the solution then would be improved technology which would create more jobs.

Wake wrote:
He has a great deal of difficulty understanding concepts of energy.
For instance - he doesn't understand that all of the energy that is shown upon this planet each day doesn't leave it.

A very small portion, 1% or so, remains here in the form of plant growth. Plants do not totally decay in areas if rapid plant growth such as forests and even plains. This is how coal, oil and natural gas deposits are laid down. Now it is possible for oil and gas to be formed from bacterial growth but this happens near the surface and is in general absorbed into the surrounding soil.

Wake wrote:
But coal and oil are from the far distant past and are limited resources.

Wake wrote:
But as long as they are available it's stupid not to use them.

Wake wrote:
He doesn't believe that you can measure MGT from a satellite.

Wake wrote:
And entire branch of science he denies.

Wake wrote:
And he is so cocksure of that he has the nerve to degrade scientists that know 1,000 times more than he does.

Wake wrote:
It has reached the point where he writes such preposterous things that it isn't even worth commenting on his postings.

Wake wrote:
I just laugh and move on. If you want to argue with him that's your business but I would think that learning more for yourself would be a more productive thing.

Wake wrote:
In a science forum I showed the NASA claimed MGT growth curve and those of Dr. Spencer.

Wake wrote:
hey had the nerve to send me a email saying that they would only accept "real scientific papers".

Wake wrote:
Those charts were DIRECTLY from NASA.

Wake wrote:
The one made public to "prove" global warming and the other from their own weather satellites.

Wake wrote:
When I gave them direct references to the NASA papers they shut up but stopped including me in their lists.

Wake wrote:
Seems like university professors don't like having their own shortcomings shoved into their faces.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ? ...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

Into the Night wrote:
Nothing.

He is not discussing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and neither are you.You both deny that law.

Wake wrote:
To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ? ...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

Into the Night wrote:
Nothing.

He is not discussing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and neither are you.You both deny that law.

Wake wrote:
To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.

I see that you can't even get the quotes accurate now. No one is denying the Stefan-Boltzman Law. You don't understand it and it isn't applicable in most of the cases you seem to think it is.

James___ wrote:
...itn,
..you're missing something when it comes to radiance. Thought I'd be a friend and let you know.

monckton wrote:
ok there's a pecker order. Scheisse!

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
ok there's a pecker order. Scheisse!

As if you could have a "couple of beers". You are a drunk and a total loser. If you showed up in anything other than a gay bar you'd be thrown out on your ear.

monckton wrote:
I keep misreading this title as "US Military Openly..." ah whatever ...

US military accepts openly gay recruits
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/20/us-military-openly-gay-recruits

... what 2010? Did they call it 'the surge'?
Anyway fck em I'm with Bill Hicks, for the war - against the troops, and I'm not even american!

But I think others on here should pretend to pay more respect.

(Did they sneak it into the URL?)

Wake wrote:
I wonder if you think that anyone cares what you think? Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.

Wake wrote:
Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.

monckton wrote:

Wake wrote:
Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.

And btw halfwit - I'm supposed to be talking a load of shit remember?
Tut, tut.

monckton wrote:
That's more like it.

monckton wrote:
I don't drink.

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
I don't drink.

Sorry Charley - beer is alcoholic and considering the way you post you're like those kids who've gotten into the cupboard when mommy is out walking the streets.

Wake wrote:
Sorry Charley - beer is alcoholic and considering the way you post you're like those kids who've gotten into the cupboard when mommy is out walking the streets.

James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.

An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.

[quote]Wake wrote:We have worked the climate to death

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.

An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.

Wake wrote:We have worked the climate to death

..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming. But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough. Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.

An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.

...Wake,
..You've never have explained the Milankovitch Cycles. You say that 2 of those cycles are based on the tilt of the Earth's axis. That's physically impossible. The Earth can only have one axial tilt.

James___ wrote:
..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming.

James___ wrote:
But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough.

James___ wrote:
Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.

An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.

...Wake,
..You've never have explained the Milankovitch Cycles. You say that 2 of those cycles are based on the tilt of the Earth's axis. That's physically impossible. The Earth can only have one axial tilt.
..This is a climate debate forum yet you say

Wake wrote:We have worked the climate to death

..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming. But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough. Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)

Now you're sounding a whole lot like nightmare, your nemesis. If you find yourself incapable of looking up the explanation of the Milankovitch Cycles perhaps you shouldn't be posting at all.

James___ wrote:
...@All,.
Neither wake or tin can explain how something can have 2 different axis of rotation at the same time. They can't because that's physically impossible. Yet they both accept it.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
...@All,.
Neither wake or tin can explain how something can have 2 different axis of rotation at the same time. They can't because that's physically impossible. Yet they both accept it.

Inversion fallacy and argument of the stone fallacy. I just explained it.