Remember me
▼ Content

Default value


Default value02-01-2020 03:19
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
02-01-2020 03:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


Harry, it is not my intention to be mean, so don't take what I am about to write personally.

What you wrote above is stupid. Utterly stupid. Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum. There is no temperature in electromagnetic radiation. The temperature of an object in space with an existing electromagnetic field depends entirely on the strength of the electromagnetic field and the emissivity of the object.

If the sun were to "turn off", the earth would thermally radiate towards a temperature of absolute zero. Its final equilibrium temperature would depend on the electromagnetic field where the earth is and the earth's emissivity, neither of which are known, despite tmiddles' claim of knowing what they are simply by virtue of understanding what the concepts mean.

The earth's atmosphere *IS* part of the earth. The earth's atmosphere will radiate thermally just as the rest of the components of the earth. The wording of your question above implies that the atmosphere is somehow something separate from the earth. It is not. Nor is the ocean.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 03:57
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


Harry, it is not my intention to be mean, so don't take what I am about to write personally.

What you wrote above is stupid. Utterly stupid. Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum. There is no temperature in electromagnetic radiation. The temperature of an object in space with an existing electromagnetic field depends entirely on the strength of the electromagnetic field and the emissivity of the object.

If the sun were to "turn off", the earth would thermally radiate towards a temperature of absolute zero. Its final equilibrium temperature would depend on the electromagnetic field where the earth is and the earth's emissivity, neither of which are known, despite tmiddles' claim of knowing what they are simply by virtue of understanding what the concepts mean.

The earth's atmosphere *IS* part of the earth. The earth's atmosphere will radiate thermally just as the rest of the components of the earth. The wording of your question above implies that the atmosphere is somehow something separate from the earth. It is not. Nor is the ocean.


.

Thanks Ibdm. You took a step forward in answering my question. There's nothing I'm going to take offense at. I know my lack of knowledge makes my questions awkward and I am sorry for that. I'm very systems oriented and like to understand all of the interactions.

May I attempt a clarification? If the sun was shut off there would be a period of time for the earth to go through some sort of temperature equilibrium, as you pointed out. Knowing your position on the non-effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, would it be a longer or shorter time based upon the concentration of various elements of the atmosphere?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
02-01-2020 05:42
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?



The atmosphere does retain heat. The simplest way to state this is that you referenced the solar constant. At night, what is the solar constant? And what's the temperature?
Here we can almost say on clear nights it's colder, like over deserts. If there's cloud cover (water vapor in the atmosphere that adheres to other water vapor molecules), there might be little cooling.
After this it gets a lot more technical. To get an idea, consider altitude of the tropopause and just how high up are those clouds? More variables to consider.
Edited on 02-01-2020 05:43
02-01-2020 06:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


Harry, it is not my intention to be mean, so don't take what I am about to write personally.

What you wrote above is stupid. Utterly stupid. Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum. There is no temperature in electromagnetic radiation. The temperature of an object in space with an existing electromagnetic field depends entirely on the strength of the electromagnetic field and the emissivity of the object.

If the sun were to "turn off", the earth would thermally radiate towards a temperature of absolute zero. Its final equilibrium temperature would depend on the electromagnetic field where the earth is and the earth's emissivity, neither of which are known, despite tmiddles' claim of knowing what they are simply by virtue of understanding what the concepts mean.

The earth's atmosphere *IS* part of the earth. The earth's atmosphere will radiate thermally just as the rest of the components of the earth. The wording of your question above implies that the atmosphere is somehow something separate from the earth. It is not. Nor is the ocean.


.

Thanks Ibdm. You took a step forward in answering my question. There's nothing I'm going to take offense at. I know my lack of knowledge makes my questions awkward and I am sorry for that. I'm very systems oriented and like to understand all of the interactions.

May I attempt a clarification? If the sun was shut off there would be a period of time for the earth to go through some sort of temperature equilibrium, as you pointed out. Knowing your position on the non-effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, would it be a longer or shorter time based upon the concentration of various elements of the atmosphere?


How do you expect to shut off the Sun?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-01-2020 08:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


Short answer, yes; why are you asking here?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-01-2020 17:40
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


Harry, it is not my intention to be mean, so don't take what I am about to write personally.

What you wrote above is stupid. Utterly stupid. Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum. There is no temperature in electromagnetic radiation. The temperature of an object in space with an existing electromagnetic field depends entirely on the strength of the electromagnetic field and the emissivity of the object.

If the sun were to "turn off", the earth would thermally radiate towards a temperature of absolute zero. Its final equilibrium temperature would depend on the electromagnetic field where the earth is and the earth's emissivity, neither of which are known, despite tmiddles' claim of knowing what they are simply by virtue of understanding what the concepts mean.

The earth's atmosphere *IS* part of the earth. The earth's atmosphere will radiate thermally just as the rest of the components of the earth. The wording of your question above implies that the atmosphere is somehow something separate from the earth. It is not. Nor is the ocean.


.

Thanks Ibdm. You took a step forward in answering my question. There's nothing I'm going to take offense at. I know my lack of knowledge makes my questions awkward and I am sorry for that. I'm very systems oriented and like to understand all of the interactions.

May I attempt a clarification? If the sun was shut off there would be a period of time for the earth to go through some sort of temperature equilibrium, as you pointed out. Knowing your position on the non-effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, would it be a longer or shorter time based upon the concentration of various elements of the atmosphere?


How do you expect to shut off the Sun?


I don't. It was purely a hypothetical pursuit.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
02-01-2020 17:41
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
spot wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The default temperature of space is 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). It takes 1368 W/m2 to heat the earth. Presumably, if the sun was shut off, the temperature of our earth would become colder, along with other maladies. Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?


Short answer, yes; why are you asking here?


Thanks. Such a friendly group...where would you suggest I ask?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
02-01-2020 18:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.
02-01-2020 19:13
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.



Sadly Google sucks. It's very difficult for me to find meaningful information. If the majority of the people search for CO2 instead of O2, the results will be for CO2.
Search engines return the mainstream results. What do 9 out of 10 people search for? That's the answer you will get.
A professor at Stanford who is a billionaire says that Google is for people who might want to do research online at 3 am. I find search engines return very poor results if a person has a specific interest in science.
Most of the returns I like are from universities who have publications on their campus. That seems to be where the real science is found. Campus newspapers reporting on research being pursued by their faculty.
02-01-2020 19:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.



Sadly Google sucks. It's very difficult for me to find meaningful information. If the majority of the people search for CO2 instead of O2, the results will be for CO2.
Search engines return the mainstream results. What do 9 out of 10 people search for? That's the answer you will get.
A professor at Stanford who is a billionaire says that Google is for people who might want to do research online at 3 am. I find search engines return very poor results if a person has a specific interest in science.
Most of the returns I like are from universities who have publications on their campus. That seems to be where the real science is found. Campus newspapers reporting on research being pursued by their faculty.


Use Google Scholar then

However any approach would be better then coming on this talkbord and asking the most active participants.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-01-2020 20:51
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.



Sadly Google sucks. It's very difficult for me to find meaningful information. If the majority of the people search for CO2 instead of O2, the results will be for CO2.
Search engines return the mainstream results. What do 9 out of 10 people search for? That's the answer you will get.
A professor at Stanford who is a billionaire says that Google is for people who might want to do research online at 3 am. I find search engines return very poor results if a person has a specific interest in science.
Most of the returns I like are from universities who have publications on their campus. That seems to be where the real science is found. Campus newspapers reporting on research being pursued by their faculty.


Use Google Scholar then

However any approach would be better then coming on this talkbord and asking the most active participants.


I tried a search for O2 and the results were worthless.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.23.1.207
Should I be expected to support every group that says you might find this interesting? This is the most promising result but nothing to suggest I should spend any money to find out their results.
02-01-2020 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.


Google doesn't know. They can't shut off the Sun.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-01-2020 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.



Sadly Google sucks. It's very difficult for me to find meaningful information. If the majority of the people search for CO2 instead of O2, the results will be for CO2.
Search engines return the mainstream results. What do 9 out of 10 people search for? That's the answer you will get.
A professor at Stanford who is a billionaire says that Google is for people who might want to do research online at 3 am. I find search engines return very poor results if a person has a specific interest in science.
Most of the returns I like are from universities who have publications on their campus. That seems to be where the real science is found. Campus newspapers reporting on research being pursued by their faculty.


Use Google Scholar then

However any approach would be better then coming on this talkbord and asking the most active participants.

Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-01-2020 21:07
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.



Sadly Google sucks. It's very difficult for me to find meaningful information. If the majority of the people search for CO2 instead of O2, the results will be for CO2.
Search engines return the mainstream results. What do 9 out of 10 people search for? That's the answer you will get.
A professor at Stanford who is a billionaire says that Google is for people who might want to do research online at 3 am. I find search engines return very poor results if a person has a specific interest in science.
Most of the returns I like are from universities who have publications on their campus. That seems to be where the real science is found. Campus newspapers reporting on research being pursued by their faculty.


Use Google Scholar then

However any approach would be better then coming on this talkbord and asking the most active participants.

Bulverism fallacy.



ITN, the search engine specified was meaningless. It's results actually seem to be random. O2 is a specific reference and the results weren't relevant. Using a search engine can consume massive amounts of time because the search query has to be modified to achieve a somewhat beneficial result.
To give you an idea. Americans never attacked Native Americans. It simply did not happen. Native Americans refused to be educated by Americans in the right way. This needs to be understood. You seem to have difficulty in grasping this simple context.
Real Americans would like to teach you how to think. I do not understand why you would have a problem with this. Wouldn't you like to know the right way to think? We can help you.

it does suck, doesn't it? Someone else telling you why you matter.
Edited on 02-01-2020 21:22
02-01-2020 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
I would suggest that you look it up, use Google. As I said before people here think it's funny to give stupid answers to questions like that as a joke.



Sadly Google sucks. It's very difficult for me to find meaningful information. If the majority of the people search for CO2 instead of O2, the results will be for CO2.
Search engines return the mainstream results. What do 9 out of 10 people search for? That's the answer you will get.
A professor at Stanford who is a billionaire says that Google is for people who might want to do research online at 3 am. I find search engines return very poor results if a person has a specific interest in science.
Most of the returns I like are from universities who have publications on their campus. That seems to be where the real science is found. Campus newspapers reporting on research being pursued by their faculty.


Use Google Scholar then

However any approach would be better then coming on this talkbord and asking the most active participants.

Bulverism fallacy.



ITN, the search engine specified was meaningless.
I didn't specify one.
James___ wrote:
It's results actually seem to be random.
Because they are. It's part of the algorithm in most search engines. The randomness is of type randU.
James___ wrote:
O2 is a specific reference and the results weren't relevant. Using a search engine can consume massive amounts of time because the search query has to be modified to achieve a somewhat beneficial result.

No search engine is a science book or a chemistry book.
James___ wrote:
To give you an idea. Americans never attacked Native Americans. It simply did not happen.
Yes it did. It still happens today.
James___ wrote:
Native Americans refused to be educated by Americans in the right way.
An example?
James___ wrote:
This needs to be understood.
Understand what? Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
You seem to have difficulty in grasping this simple context.
There is no context. Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Real Americans would like to teach you how to think.
True Scotsman fallacy. Define 'real American'.
James___ wrote:
I do not understand why you would have a problem with this.
Problem with what? Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-01-2020 03:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
Harry C wrote:Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?

The key factor in how much radiance a body in our solar system gets it distance from the sun. The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.

Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:
So simple question I consider a definitive proof that the Earth's atmosphere retains thermal energy:
The moon at night -150C vs. The Earth at night ~10C

What explanation is there for the Earth at night being so very warm than that the atmosphere is retaining thermal energy?

Proof 2, the mean temp is far too high:
This goes back to Fourier and the realization by scientists that Earth is a lot warmer on average then it should be if you simply calculate the energy we receive from the sun. Now I personally agree that the confidence shown in predicting the average/mean temp of Earth to the fraction of a degree is BS, however I have no doubt it's accurate to within several degrees and for the purposes of this proof a 10 degree margin of error works because Earth is a full 30 degrees warmer than a calculation using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would give you for an Earth that was a perfect black body, which it's not. See here

IBdaMann wrote:Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum.
The classic ITN/IBD claim that "we can't talk about this at all". He claims that something in a vacuum doesn't have a temperature. We are of course talking about the temperature of the ground surface of things and we do just fine measuring that. It's a great question Harry.

So what do we mean when we say the void of space has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin? It means it's as if you were in a room that was 2.7 Kelvin! Pretty Fing simple. You have that much energy reaching you for your ambient environment in the void of space. Pointing out that void itself has not temperature is what scientists call "a waste of everyone's time", to use the academic jargon.

IBdaMann wrote: There is no temperature in electromagnetic radiation.
True but temperature produces that radiation. Of course we mean that when we talk about the temperature of radiance. We have never actually visited to the sun (this would be a rough landing) but we do have a pretty good idea how hot it's surface is from it's radiance. This is one of the things about the Stefan-Boltzmann law that is so useful.

Most importantly note that IBD has entirely DODGED your question.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 03-01-2020 03:50
03-01-2020 12:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?

The key factor in how much radiance a body in our solar system gets it distance from the sun. The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.
The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The only thing similar is that they are basically the same distance from the Sun.
tmiddles wrote:
Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:
So simple question I consider a definitive proof that the Earth's atmosphere retains thermal energy:
The moon at night -150C vs. The Earth at night ~10C

Not a proof. It is not possible to retain or trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
What explanation is there for the Earth at night being so very warm than that the atmosphere is retaining thermal energy?
It is not possible to retain or trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Proof 2, the mean temp is far too high:
The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum.
The classic ITN/IBD claim that "we can't talk about this at all".
There is no temperature in a vacuum.
tmiddles wrote:
He claims that something in a vacuum doesn't have a temperature.
It doesn't.
tmiddles wrote:
We are of course talking about the temperature of the ground surface of things
Lie. We are talking about a vacuum.
tmiddles wrote:
and we do just fine measuring that.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the Moon.
tmiddles wrote:
So what do we mean when we say the void of space has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin? It means it's as if you were in a room that was 2.7 Kelvin! Pretty Fing simple. You have that much energy reaching you for your ambient environment in the void of space. Pointing out that void itself has not temperature is what scientists call "a waste of everyone's time", to use the academic jargon.

There is no temperature in a vacuum.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: There is no temperature in electromagnetic radiation.
True but temperature produces that radiation.

WRONG. Light can be produced by several methods. Temperature is only one of them.
tmiddles wrote:
Of course we mean that when we talk about the temperature of radiance.
Divisional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
We have never actually visited to the sun (this would be a rough landing) but we do have a pretty good idea how hot it's surface is from it's radiance.
Nope. The temperature of the Sun is unknown. All you can do is estimate it. That's only good to +- several thousand degrees.
tmiddles wrote:
This is one of the things about the Stefan-Boltzmann law that is so useful.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not used to estimate it.
tmiddles wrote:
Most importantly note that IBD has entirely DODGED your question.

Lie. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-01-2020 15:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?

The key factor in how much radiance a body in our solar system gets it distance from the sun. The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.

One moment you are accurately referencing the moon and the next you insist that the earth's atmosphere specifically heats the earth (but doesn't ever cool it). I presume this is because you believe that you determine nature so whatever you say is absolutely correct. In fact, whatever you invent is "what we know."

Too funny.



tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Only matter has temperature. There is no temperature in a vacuum.
The classic ITN/IBD claim that "we can't talk about this at all". He claims that something in a vacuum doesn't have a temperature. We are of course talking about the temperature of the ground surface of things and we do just fine measuring that. It's a great question Harry.

So here we have tmiddles insisting that a vacuum does, in fact have temperature, i.e. that temperature is not restricted to matter ... because he says so ... because he determines nature. Outstanding.

tmiddles wrote: So what do we mean when we say the void of space has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin? It means it's as if you were in a room that was 2.7 Kelvin!

Nope. Saying that a vacuum has temperature is just wrong, like you are. If you had not ignored what I wrote you would have avoided writing the stupid crap you just did. Nonetheless, you routinely ignore anything that differs from whatever you are fabricating at the moment.

The temperature of any body in a vacuum is entirely dependent upon the strength of the electromagnetic field and of the emissivity of the body. Different bodies in the same region of a vacuum will have differing tremperatures based on their differing emissivities.

QUESTION: So, if there are two bodies in the vacuum of space, one is 3K and the other is 8K, what does tmiddles use to determine the temperature of the vacuum?

ANSWER: Wikipedia!

tmiddles wrote: We have never actually visited to the sun (this would be a rough landing) but we do have a pretty good idea how hot it's surface is from it's radiance.

Where is the sun's surface? You know everything so where exactly is the sun's surface? Presuming an indestructible material, could something actually "land" on the sun?

tmiddles wrote: Most importantly note that IBD has entirely DODGED your question.

Yes, note that I didn't fabricate an answer.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-01-2020 02:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.
The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Is the emissivity of a black body also unknown? Because Earth is warmer than calculations for a black body at the same distance from the sun. You have no answer for that I know don't bother Mr. Fallacy.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:...

Not a proof. It is not possible to retain or trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
So what's your explanation ITN? Nothing? Very consistent.

IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny.
Very astute calculation IBD. You too have no answers at all as you too are very consistent on this board.
I would point out that you never provide any citatations but as you don't really say anything other than "we can't talk about this" what could you cite?
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, note that I didn't fabricate an answer.
You didn't answer and you never do.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So what do we mean when we say the void of space has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin? It means it's as if you were in a room that was 2.7 Kelvin!

Nope. Saying that a vacuum has temperature is just wrong, like you are. ...
The temperature of any body in a vacuum is entirely dependent upon the strength of the electromagnetic field and of the emissivity of the body. ...

So let's review: IBD says it's absurd to compare a field of radiance to a temperature. That a vacuum doesn't have a temperature (true) and to compare it to one is absured. I think I got that about right. Let me direct you to the following IBD quote, liked to it's source:
IBdaMann wrote:
So for the moment, let's return to my question and remove all heat lamps. In deep space, the outer shell (and the inner ball) are in a uniform infrared radiation field that maintains both at 80degC through and through.

I'm pretty sure that's IBD describing a field and a temperature associated with it. Judge for yourselves.

But in the interests of a common vocabulary I would certainly agree that deep space has a uniform radiation field consistent with 2.7K. (I know IBD is a bit touchy about talking about radiance in a room since he was thoroughly debunked by the example in my sig).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 04-01-2020 02:22
04-01-2020 09:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.
The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Is the emissivity of a black body also unknown?

Nope. It is 1 by definition. It is a reference point. There are no actual ideal black bodies.
tmiddles wrote:
Because Earth is warmer than calculations for a black body at the same distance from the sun.

No, it doesn't. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
You have no answer for that I know don't bother Mr. Fallacy.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:...

Not a proof. It is not possible to retain or trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
So what's your explanation ITN? Nothing? Very consistent.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny.
Very astute calculation IBD. You too have no answers at all as you too are very consistent on this board.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I would point out that you never provide any citatations

Lie. The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are their own authoritative reference. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
but as you don't really say anything other than "we can't talk about this"

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
what could you cite?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, note that I didn't fabricate an answer.
You didn't answer and you never do.

He already did. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So what do we mean when we say the void of space has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin? It means it's as if you were in a room that was 2.7 Kelvin!

Nope. Saying that a vacuum has temperature is just wrong, like you are. ...
The temperature of any body in a vacuum is entirely dependent upon the strength of the electromagnetic field and of the emissivity of the body. ...

So let's review: IBD says it's absurd to compare a field of radiance to a temperature.

Light has no temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
That a vacuum doesn't have a temperature

A vacuum has no temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
and to compare it to one is absured.

The only saying a vacuum has a temperature is YOU.
tmiddles wrote:
I think I got that about right.

Nope. RDCF. Compositional error fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
But in the interests of a common vocabulary I would certainly agree that deep space has a uniform radiation field consistent with 2.7K. (I know IBD is a bit touchy about talking about radiance in a room since he was thoroughly debunked by the example in my sig).

An 'example' fabricated out of random numbers and equations is not a a valid example.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-01-2020 13:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Because Earth is warmer than calculations for a black body at the same distance from the sun.

No, it doesn't. RDCF.
what do you calculate the temperature of a black body our distance from the sun would be?
You've stated you know so share your knowledge.




Join the debate Default value:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact