Remember me
▼ Content

A "challenge" for you, IB and Into



Page 2 of 3<123>
13-10-2016 05:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.

He's not the one who needs to convince anyone of anything. He's not the one trying to sell a WACKY religion as "thettled thience."

You keep trying to shift your burden of proof.


.


The point of a debate is that you support your position. A good way of doing this is to derive your point from laws, rules, facts, etc. A bad way of doing this is to insult your opponent and insist that they are idiots, and can't make a good argument, and that you are definitely right.


Both ways work in a debate.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected


"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!
13-10-2016 05:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.

He's not the one who needs to convince anyone of anything. He's not the one trying to sell a WACKY religion as "thettled thience."

You keep trying to shift your burden of proof.


.


The point of a debate is that you support your position. A good way of doing this is to derive your point from laws, rules, facts, etc. A bad way of doing this is to insult your opponent and insist that they are idiots, and can't make a good argument, and that you are definitely right.


Both ways work in a debate.


Only one actually shows that you are right.


"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!
13-10-2016 09:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 09:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
...deleted dupe...


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2016 09:08
13-10-2016 19:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.


"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!
13-10-2016 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?[/quote]
Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.[/quote]
I have already answered this for you.

Yes, if you have an open system and more energy is entering the system than is leaving then temperature increases.

If the amount of energy entering the system is equal to the amount exiting the system then you have an equilibrium and the temperature remains the same.

If the amount of energy leaving the system is greater than the amount coming in then temperature decreases.

If "greenhouse gas" is introduced to the equilibrium system ... much to your chagrin, the equilibrium is maintained and the temperature remains the same, making you wonder who is trying to fool who with the name "greenhouse gas."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
13-10-2016 20:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!
13-10-2016 22:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.

So now you're saying there IS another sun! Methinks you are might confused.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss these contrivances.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 22:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

The result of an energy trap is that energy will continue to build in the trap unendingly. It is a perpetual motion machine of the first type. The end result is the trap must catastrophically destruct, taking the Earth with it.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 23:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.

So now you're saying there IS another sun! Methinks you are might confused.

It was a hypothetical situation!
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss these contrivances.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss the coffee cup.


"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!
13-10-2016 23:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

The result of an energy trap is that energy will continue to build in the trap unendingly. It is a perpetual motion machine of the first type. The end result is the trap must catastrophically destruct, taking the Earth with it.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.
The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


"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!
14-10-2016 14:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No. This is more of your weaseling. You merely claim that something is occurring when it is not, and then later you will claim to have shown how this is occurring when you have not.

Stefan-Boltzmann shows how the amount of energy leaving is not decreased and remains exactly the amount that is entering. This is the initial science denial on your part before you actually start to weasel.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 18:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Is the distribution of energy that leaves the Earth system different in any way from the distribution of energy that leaves the Earth's surface?
14-10-2016 18:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: Is the distribution of energy that leaves the Earth system different in any way from the distribution of energy that leaves the Earth's surface?

We are only concerned with the quantity of energy. Since energy can change form but not be created or destroyed, we aren't concerned with any "distribution" but rather with staying focused on the quantity of energy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 20:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I realize that you answering "yes" to that question doesn't make me right. This isn't a loaded question. Please just answer yes or no, so I can know where we disagree.
14-10-2016 21:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: I realize that you answering "yes" to that question doesn't make me right. This isn't a loaded question. Please just answer yes or no, so I can know where we disagree.

Sure, I'd love to, just as soon as you ask a valid, non-contradictory question.

Hint: If I'm asking you for clarification, or I am clarifying something for you, incorporate that into any question you might have. If you ignore what I'm telling you then you can count on your question being ignored.

Another Hint: You now need to convince me that I need to concern myself with "energy spectra" rather than just "energy quantity" or drop it from your question.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 21:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

If so, then it does so by absorbing radiation, mostly. If, as you say, atoms will usually emit the same wavelength as they absorb, then as far as I can see, the only way that the atmosphere could affect the spectrum would be to prevent some radiation from reaching space.
14-10-2016 22:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

Yes. The atmosphere is outstanding at redistributing the energy wealth, despite a constant incoming amount and the same amount going out.

Hey, can I offer an analogy?

Imagine a guy named "Thesun" who keeps throwing rolls of quarters at a guy in a crowd who then turns around and throws that same roll of quarters off into the distance, and then turns back around to catch the next roll of quarters from Thesun.

Then another guy named "Theatmosphere" walks in front of the dude catching the rolls of quarters from Thesun and he intercepts the rolls of quarters. Theatmosphere then breaks open each roll and throws the quarters to everyone in the crowd. Each person in the crowd then chucks his quarter off into the distance.

It's like that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 22:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, what is your definition of spectral radiance, and why do you say that Planck's outputs energy, not spectral radiance?

IB, I have a 1L spherical, perfectly clear flask. It is filled with pure H2 at 2 atm, 300K. I am standing 1 m away, observing the radiation at the 700nm wavelength. How much should I measure? Show your work, and do not take the answer from previous observation; that'd be cheating.

This really shouldn't be that hard, IB; after all, you expected me, a "mathematically illiterate idiot", to do it.
Have fun!

Still no answer from IBdaMann on this?

But didn't here assure us that lots of experiments have been performed in an attempt to falsify Planck's Law? With gases too? A link to just one of these experiments would be enough to prove he isn't really a delusional bullshitter with the scientific literacy of a 5-year-old.
14-10-2016 23:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

Yes. The atmosphere is outstanding at redistributing the energy wealth, despite a constant incoming amount and the same amount going out.

Hey, can I offer an analogy?

Imagine a guy named "Thesun" who keeps throwing rolls of quarters at a guy in a crowd who then turns around and throws that same roll of quarters off into the distance, and then turns back around to catch the next roll of quarters from Thesun.

Then another guy named "Theatmosphere" walks in front of the dude catching the rolls of quarters from Thesun and he intercepts the rolls of quarters. Theatmosphere then breaks open each roll and throws the quarters to everyone in the crowd. Each person in the crowd then chucks his quarter off into the distance.

It's like that.


.


Okay, point taken, analogies aren't the most useful.

The atmosphere absorbs some radiation, right? Which direction does that radiation go? Both up and down, right? So what happens to the radiation that is radiated right back to the surface?


"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!
Edited on 14-10-2016 23:19
15-10-2016 02:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.

So now you're saying there IS another sun! Methinks you are might confused.

It was a hypothetical situation!
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss these contrivances.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss the coffee cup.

I am not trying to represent Earth with the coffee cup.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 02:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The result of an energy trap is that energy will continue to build in the trap unendingly. It is a perpetual motion machine of the first type. The end result is the trap must catastrophically destruct, taking the Earth with it.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.
The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 02:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

Yes. The atmosphere is outstanding at redistributing the energy wealth, despite a constant incoming amount and the same amount going out.

Hey, can I offer an analogy?

Imagine a guy named "Thesun" who keeps throwing rolls of quarters at a guy in a crowd who then turns around and throws that same roll of quarters off into the distance, and then turns back around to catch the next roll of quarters from Thesun.

Then another guy named "Theatmosphere" walks in front of the dude catching the rolls of quarters from Thesun and he intercepts the rolls of quarters. Theatmosphere then breaks open each roll and throws the quarters to everyone in the crowd. Each person in the crowd then chucks his quarter off into the distance.

It's like that.


.

An excellent analogy! Love the names you came up for these clowns.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 02:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.
15-10-2016 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.


Why would it?


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 03:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.[/quote]

Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.


"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!
15-10-2016 03:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.


Why would it?


The Earth absorbs solar radiation. It emits... not solar radiation. The Earthly radiation is incredibly different from solar radiation.


"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!
15-10-2016 04:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.


Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.


In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-10-2016 04:20
15-10-2016 04:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.


Why would it?


The Earth absorbs solar radiation. It emits... not solar radiation. The Earthly radiation is incredibly different from solar radiation.


Each atom that makes up the Earth absorbs it's favorite frequency of light. When (and if) the photon is emitted again, that will be emitted at the same frequency. Remember the photon need not be emitted at all. The energy of that emission follows Planck's law. It will be dependent on the temperature of the material.

The combined effect of all the atoms of the Earth (or even a smaller chunk of it) doing this is to produce the so-called 'black body' type curve.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 05:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.


Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.


In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.

But that energy then goes into other forms, and is radiated through other means - hot gases produce radiation, even when not stimulated with light.


"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!
15-10-2016 06:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.


Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.


In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.

But that energy then goes into other forms, and is radiated through other means - hot gases produce radiation, even when not stimulated with light.


Cold gases do to. Anything that is not absolute zero produces radiation in the form of light. That is Planck's law.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 07:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, I was referring to the visible glow. All gases radiate, even if no light is hitting them. Absorbed radiation can go toward heating the object, right?
15-10-2016 07:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.


Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.


In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.


And what does that energy go toward? Heating up the gas, right? And that means it can sustain the emitted radiation. Radiation not necessarily at the wavelength of the absorbed radiation.

But even without this, the way that some energy returns to the surface if GHG exist, whereas without them it would not, suggests that the temperature would increase.


"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!
15-10-2016 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

You mean like Venus, clearly visible from earth? You mean like that?

It's like that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-10-2016 17:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

You mean like Venus, clearly visible from earth? You mean like that?

It's like that.


.


Why isn't Earth like that, then? Why is Earth radiating pretty much only long-wave radiation, when it (obviously) receives more than long-wave radiation?


"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!
15-10-2016 17:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.


Why would it?


The Earth absorbs solar radiation. It emits... not solar radiation. The Earthly radiation is incredibly different from solar radiation.


Each atom

Wouldn't that be each molecule?
that makes up the Earth absorbs it's favorite frequency of light.

The absorption spectrum for a single atom can include multiple wavelengths, but yes.
When (and if) the photon is emitted again, that will be emitted at the same frequency.

Yes.
Remember the photon need not be emitted at all. The energy of that emission follows Planck's law. It will be dependent on the temperature of the material.

???

The energy of a photon is solely dependent on its frequency/wavelength.
The combined effect of all the atoms of the Earth (or even a smaller chunk of it) doing this is to produce the so-called 'black body' type curve.

Let's suppose that an iron bar is heated by a heat lamp, at a single wavelength. What wavelength will the black body radiation be from the iron?


"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!
Edited on 15-10-2016 17:49
15-10-2016 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the visible glow. All gases radiate, even if no light is hitting them. Absorbed radiation can go toward heating the object, right?


IF the photon absorbed happens to be in the infrared band, yes.

More energetic colors tend to do things like break or make chemical bonds, or even modify the atom itself, by kicking an electron so hard the atom becomes an ion.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 23:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!


No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...


Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.


Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.


Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.


In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.


And what does that energy go toward? Heating up the gas, right? And that means it can sustain the emitted radiation. Radiation not necessarily at the wavelength of the absorbed radiation.

But even without this, the way that some energy returns to the surface if GHG exist, whereas without them it would not, suggests that the temperature would increase.


An absorbed photon may not heat up a substance at all. It may alter the substance.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

You mean like Venus, clearly visible from earth? You mean like that?

It's like that.


.


Why isn't Earth like that, then? Why is Earth radiating pretty much only long-wave radiation, when it (obviously) receives more than long-wave radiation?


I assume you mean infrared again. Please use correct terminology. Longwave is from 30kHz to 300kHz.

Not everything the Earth receives is absorbed. MOST of it is reflected. Seen from space, Earth is quite bright and shiny. On a particularly cold clear night with a new crescent moon in the winter, you can see Earthshine on the dark portion of the moon. That is the glow of the Earth that is so bright the Moon is reflecting some of that shine back at us.

This is best seen in winter, since in summer the sun is up and usually in the way. You will see it off to the west shortly after sunset, just when it gets nice and dark. Usually just before the Moon itself sets.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate A "challenge" for you, IB and Into:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
2020 Hackaday Challenge2525-05-2019 07:18
White House eyes nuclear weapons expert to lead challenge to climate science019-04-2019 19:15
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
GREAT ENERGY CHALLENGE GRANT PROJECT COMPLETED003-01-2014 06:44
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact