Remember me
▼ Content

Definition of heat and heat pump



Page 1 of 212>
Definition of heat and heat pump18-01-2020 11:39
starryowl
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
I have lurked in this forum a lot and seen a lot of instances where people disagree with each other because they did not define what their terms meant so it leads to a lot of disagreement over semantics of what words mean. I have seen websites say that heat can be moved or transferred(in terms of a heat pump), but from my understanding, heat is the flow of thermal energy, which would have a direction I believe. Is it similar to the flow of electric current where a difference of potential is created. I keep seeing tabloids talk of thermal feedbacks or tipping points which don't really make sense, perpetual energy is not a thing as far as I know, even homer simpson knows that.
18-01-2020 14:12
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
starryowl wrote:
I have lurked in this forum a lot and seen a lot of instances where people disagree with each other because they did not define what their terms meant so it leads to a lot of disagreement over semantics of what words mean. I have seen websites say that heat can be moved or transferred(in terms of a heat pump), but from my understanding, heat is the flow of thermal energy, which would have a direction I believe. Is it similar to the flow of electric current where a difference of potential is created. I keep seeing tabloids talk of thermal feedbacks or tipping points which don't really make sense, perpetual energy is not a thing as far as I know, even homer simpson knows that.


I very good post if I may say so !

When we speak about heat, we must clear to what domain we speak of. In the every day life, many of us would think of heat as what we experience as a part of what we experience - i.e the outside temoerature in a "heat wave" for instance.

However, when we enter thermodynamics heat is something else. In that context, heat is defined as the form of energy that is transfered across the boundary of one system at a given temperature to another system - or its surroundings - at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference.

From this follows that heat is defined at the boundary of the system, and a body never contains heat.

Now, before you jump to conclusions on this definition, read it again because I know that some will read this as a proof that the GHE is bogus. The units for heat is btw Joule (J) btw.

Why is the definition important ?
It sets the boundary of the definition - i.e what does it apply to and what doesn't it apply to. So in the context of this site, the example would be that a body will not stop emitting EM radiation just due to the presence of another body with a higher temperature. Neither will a body stop absorbing EM radiation due to the presence of body with lower temperature.
18-01-2020 19:14
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1642)
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.

What's failing in global warming, is the focus on simple textbook definitions, and the failing to recognize that the planet and atmosphere are a lot more complex, a lot of other things going on, moving thermal energy around. Lot of those other mechanisms are simply dismissed as not being significant factors. A system, is the sum of all parts, you don't get to pick and chose, what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.
18-01-2020 19:26
starryowl
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.

I am not trying to sell anything, I can only agree from my own personal opinion that the various climates around the globe are "complex". I sort of just want people to figure out agreed upon definitions for the words they are using, which I think was established in another thread, but barely anybody gave a damn about it.
18-01-2020 19:44
starryowl
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
[/quote]Why is the definition important ?
It sets the boundary of the definition - i.e what does it apply to and what doesn't it apply to. So in the context of this site, the example would be that a body will not stop emitting EM radiation just due to the presence of another body with a higher temperature. Neither will a body stop absorbing EM radiation due to the presence of body with lower temperature.[/quote]

So why would the climate change espousers say that CO2 or methane has some inherent property that radiates thermal energy back towards the earth? I don't know of any gas that is a good insulator. I keep hearing that these gases hinder the ability of "heat" to escape the atmosphere, but these gases would only be passive in the terms of thermal energy transfer, correct?
18-01-2020 20:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
MarcusR wrote:I very good post if I may say so !

I'm glad you like that message when it comes from him. So are you now going to provide the unambiguous defintion for the global climate?

MarcusR wrote: However, when we enter thermodynamics heat is something else.

Of course colloquial definitions differ from physics definitions. If you had known this you would have said something to tmiddles whenever he tried to use an online dictionary as a physics textbook. I'm guessing you don't know the difference either.

MarcusR wrote: In that context, heat is defined as the form of energy that...

Nope. Heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a flow. I realize that this isn't sinking in but I wanted you to at least be told. If you point to a river and talk about the flow of the water, you would be incorrect to then point to a swimming pool and talk about how it is filled with flow because the pool has no flow, it just has water.

Heat is a flow of thermal energy, not any energy that might be flowing.

MarcusR wrote:Now, before you jump to conclusions on this definition, read it again because I know that some will read this as a proof that the GHE is bogus.

Your mistaken definition is not the reason that Greenhosue Effect is nothing more than WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma. The actual reason is that Greenhouse Effect is simply WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma.

Show me someone who believes in Greenhouse Effect and I will show you someone who is either scientifically illterate or someone who is a flat out science denier. Shall we start with you?


MarcusR wrote: The units for heat is btw Joule (J) btw.

Nope. Joules is a measure of energy. A flow is a power, e.g. Watts. If you have an area cross-section involved, or a surface area of a body, then you can normalize over that area to get RADIANCE.

In what units do we measure solar radiation?



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
18-01-2020 20:18
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1642)
starryowl wrote:
what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.

I am not trying to sell anything, I can only agree from my own personal opinion that the various climates around the globe are "complex". I sort of just want people to figure out agreed upon definitions for the words they are using, which I think was established in another thread, but barely anybody gave a damn about it.


Could be I missed it, since many of these threads get reduced to silly debate-game nonsense...

There are various climates and regions across the globe, but there isn't a single, global climate. There isn't even a global temperature, since half the planet is facing the sun, while the other side is in shade. A lot of solid rock separates the sun side, and the shadow. What's going on in one region, has little to no effect on most others.

I live in Florida, and our winter climate has been mild this year, actually really pleasant. While, not far up north, they are getting snow and cold. Winter will be over here, in a few more weeks, but most of the other states will still be getting snow for a couple months...
18-01-2020 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
starryowl wrote:
I have lurked in this forum a lot and seen a lot of instances where people disagree with each other because they did not define what their terms meant so it leads to a lot of disagreement over semantics of what words mean.

I started the Wordsmith thread for exactly this reason. It was a thread designated for people to define the words they use. They were free to define any word, but they could not use a dictionary as a source reference (since dictionaries do not define words). In other words, the etymology of the word was requested.

The Wordsmith thread is the only place where the phrase 'global warming' and 'climate change' was ever defined. The source of those definitions was listed as the Church of Global Warming. As no one from the Church of Global Warming challenged those definitions with one of their own, those are the only definitions I have so far.

You can read the result of that here.
starryowl wrote:
I have seen websites say that heat can be moved or transferred(in terms of a heat pump), but from my understanding, heat is the flow of thermal energy, which would have a direction I believe.

Correct. Heat can only flow from hot (a relative concentration of thermal energy) to cold (a relative void of thermal energy).
starryowl wrote:
Is it similar to the flow of electric current where a difference of potential is created.

Electric current does not create a potential. Potential creates an electric current (if there is a path for it to flow). Potential (voltage) is like pressure in a water pipe. Current is like the actual flow through a water pipe. Resistance is like the friction on the walls of the pipe opposing flow. Indeed, ohms law applies in exactly the same way to water pipes.

This handy comparison is useful for teaching electricity and electronics (a method I call 'plumbtronics'), since people can visualize water flow much easier than invisible electrons.
starryowl wrote:
I keep seeing tabloids talk of thermal feedbacks or tipping points which don't really make sense,

They are meaningless buzzwords, created by the Church of Global Warming.
starryowl wrote:
perpetual energy is not a thing as far as I know,

Correct. In any description of perpetual energy, one must deny the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing (a perpetual energy machine of the 1st order), or by reducing entropy (perpetual energy machine of the 2nd order) which denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
starryowl wrote:
even homer simpson knows that.

Because Matt Groening knows that, at least to some degree. He did, after all, spend most of his time in the Art and English areas at college. I am glad to see Matt have the success he has. In college, he wrote his "Life in Hell", series, published in the Cooper Point Journal.


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
MarcusR wrote:
starryowl wrote:
I have lurked in this forum a lot and seen a lot of instances where people disagree with each other because they did not define what their terms meant so it leads to a lot of disagreement over semantics of what words mean. I have seen websites say that heat can be moved or transferred(in terms of a heat pump), but from my understanding, heat is the flow of thermal energy, which would have a direction I believe. Is it similar to the flow of electric current where a difference of potential is created. I keep seeing tabloids talk of thermal feedbacks or tipping points which don't really make sense, perpetual energy is not a thing as far as I know, even homer simpson knows that.


I very good post if I may say so !

When we speak about heat, we must clear to what domain we speak of. In the every day life, many of us would think of heat as what we experience as a part of what we experience - i.e the outside temoerature in a "heat wave" for instance.

However, when we enter thermodynamics heat is something else. In that context, heat is defined as the form of energy that is transfered across the boundary of one system at a given temperature to another system - or its surroundings - at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference.

From this follows that heat is defined at the boundary of the system, and a body never contains heat.

Now, before you jump to conclusions on this definition, read it again because I know that some will read this as a proof that the GHE is bogus. The units for heat is btw Joule (J) btw.

Why is the definition important ?
It sets the boundary of the definition - i.e what does it apply to and what doesn't it apply to. So in the context of this site, the example would be that a body will not stop emitting EM radiation just due to the presence of another body with a higher temperature. Neither will a body stop absorbing EM radiation due to the presence of body with lower temperature.

No molecule will accept a photon of lower energy then the molecule already has.

Heat flows from hot to cold. No other direction. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.

What's failing in global warming, is the focus on simple textbook definitions, and the failing to recognize that the planet and atmosphere are a lot more complex, a lot of other things going on, moving thermal energy around. Lot of those other mechanisms are simply dismissed as not being significant factors. A system, is the sum of all parts, you don't get to pick and chose, what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.


As complex as anyone perceives it to be, you can simplify it down to a single body (the Earth), another single body (the Sun), and the radiance into space. This is what Kirchoff's law is all about.

One need not concern themselves with every little molecule and every little photon.


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
starryowl wrote:
Why is the definition important ?
It sets the boundary of the definition - i.e what does it apply to and what doesn't it apply to. So in the context of this site, the example would be that a body will not stop emitting EM radiation just due to the presence of another body with a higher temperature. Neither will a body stop absorbing EM radiation due to the presence of body with lower temperature.[/quote]

So why would the climate change espousers say that CO2 or methane has some inherent property that radiates thermal energy back towards the earth? I don't know of any gas that is a good insulator. I keep hearing that these gases hinder the ability of "heat" to escape the atmosphere, but these gases would only be passive in the terms of thermal energy transfer, correct?[/quote]

No insulation can trap light. It's about heat by radiance, not heat by conduction.

The only way to heat Earth is by radiance from the Sun. Not all light from the Sun is converted into thermal energy. Some is simply reflected away, and some is converted to some other form of energy when absorbed (such as chemical energy).

The Church of Global Warming claims that a colder gas (CO2 or some other magick gas), can somehow heat the warmer surface, or create the additional energy needed to warm the surface.


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 21:39
starryowl
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
What I'm really pissed off about is the way that certain parts of government are acting as if this so called "science" is proof that it should be used to tax people or tell people certain ways to live their life. The IPCC should have no interaction with the US and we should not have anything to do with the Paris climate accord. I am tired of listening to other people and their so called religion that will save us from raping the earth.
18-01-2020 22:06
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
starryowl wrote:
So why would the climate change espousers say that CO2 or methane has some inherent property that radiates thermal energy back towards the earth? I don't know of any gas that is a good insulator. I keep hearing that these gases hinder the ability of "heat" to escape the atmosphere, but these gases would only be passive in the terms of thermal energy transfer, correct?


That is exactly the point. The GHG's simply has the absorbtion spectra they have in regards to certain frequencies of EMR. If you want a simple way to see that, here is one example that show both transmittance and absorbance
CO2
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

CH4
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C74828&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

And of Course water vapour who is the biggest contributor to the green house effect
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

Absorbtion or emission of a photon can ONLY happen if the interaction (photon / molecule) leads to a transition from the molecules original state to one of the other allowed states of the specific molecule. That goes for both absorbtion and emission.

I posted a short description here
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php
with some reference to why theese gasses are not passive at all in terms of atmospheric radiation.
18-01-2020 22:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
starryowl wrote:
What I'm really pissed off about is the way that certain parts of government are acting as if this so called "science" is proof that it should be used to tax people or tell people certain ways to live their life. The IPCC should have no interaction with the US and we should not have anything to do with the Paris climate accord. I am tired of listening to other people and their so called religion that will save us from raping the earth.


Don't blame you. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. That in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

The purpose of the Church of Global Warming is to justify the policies of Karl Marx, and to replace the Constitution with a fascism by oligarchy through the use of a state religion.


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 22:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
MarcusR wrote:That is exactly the point.

Nope. That's NOT the point.

The point is that the earth's temperature increases. This requires additional energy.

How do greenhouse gases create additional energy ... in violation of the laws of thermodynamics?

Are you saying that your entire point is that greenhouse gases have the divine magical power to circumvent the laws of physics and to create the miracle of Greenhouse Effect? Is that your entire point?


I am still waiting for you to pivot to violating Stefan-Boltzmann. Anytime you are ready, I am standing by.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
18-01-2020 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
MarcusR wrote:
starryowl wrote:
So why would the climate change espousers say that CO2 or methane has some inherent property that radiates thermal energy back towards the earth? I don't know of any gas that is a good insulator. I keep hearing that these gases hinder the ability of "heat" to escape the atmosphere, but these gases would only be passive in the terms of thermal energy transfer, correct?


That is exactly the point. The GHG's simply has the absorbtion spectra they have in regards to certain frequencies of EMR. If you want a simple way to see that, here is one example that show both transmittance and absorbance
CO2
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

CH4
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C74828&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

And of Course water vapour who is the biggest contributor to the green house effect
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

Absorbtion or emission of a photon can ONLY happen if the interaction (photon / molecule) leads to a transition from the molecules original state to one of the other allowed states of the specific molecule. That goes for both absorbtion and emission.

I posted a short description here
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php
with some reference to why theese gasses are not passive at all in terms of atmospheric radiation.


Not quite. Light does not have to be emitted by changing a state of an atom. Any method of moving an electrostatic charge around will do.

Blackbody radiance is light emitted by vibrating molecules due to temperature. Emitting this light does require energy, and that energy comes from making the radiating material a bit cooler.

You can also generate light by electron states changing. This produces a pure frequency (why LED's and bioluminescent animals can emit light without burning up or even feeling warm). This is not blackbody radiance.

In fireworks, for example (a hobby of mine!), blackbody radiance can often get in the way of producing a color effect. The gold, yellow, and whites are blackbody radiance, but to get the reds, greens (difficult to get a good green!), and blues make use of electron energy drops to generate those colors. The hot burning material (it IS a firework!), can easily radiate blackbody radiance sufficient to completely mask the intended color.

By using even higher temperatures, and in the presence of chlorine, it is possible to generate a more intense color effect than the blackbody effect. Higher temperatures mean more sensitive oxidizers though, and a more sensitive mixture (making it more dangerous to handle!).


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 22:49
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.

What's failing in global warming, is the focus on simple textbook definitions, and the failing to recognize that the planet and atmosphere are a lot more complex, a lot of other things going on, moving thermal energy around. Lot of those other mechanisms are simply dismissed as not being significant factors. A system, is the sum of all parts, you don't get to pick and chose, what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.


As complex as anyone perceives it to be, you can simplify it down to a single body (the Earth), another single body (the Sun), and the radiance into space. This is what Kirchoff's law is all about.

One need not concern themselves with every little molecule and every little photon.


Kirchoffs law is in quantative terms the relation between absorptivity and emissivity given a certain wavelength and the viewimg directions are specified. And KL only applies to systems in LTE (Local thermodynamic equlibrium) and KL breaks down under certain known conditions.

Besides that, your example with the sun and earth is good, since if KL did not hold it would be possible to have a system with a spontaneous NET flow of energy from the colder to the warmer object. Key Word being NET here.

In order to understand propagation of EM waves in the atmosphere and how the GHR works, a lot more is needed.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php
And that is only parts of it. Get Petty's A first Course in atmospheric radiation.
18-01-2020 23:04
starryowl
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Why are you using the term "NET". The energy flows in one direction only. NET implies that some of the energy could be in other directions. Why are you using references that are external to this site. Can you not explain your knowledge yourself?
18-01-2020 23:33
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.

What's failing in global warming, is the focus on simple textbook definitions, and the failing to recognize that the planet and atmosphere are a lot more complex, a lot of other things going on, moving thermal energy around. Lot of those other mechanisms are simply dismissed as not being significant factors. A system, is the sum of all parts, you don't get to pick and chose, what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.


As complex as anyone perceives it to be, you can simplify it down to a single body (the Earth), another single body (the Sun), and the radiance into space. This is what Kirchoff's law is all about.

One need not concern themselves with every little molecule and every little photon.


Kirchoffs law is in quantative terms the relation between absorptivity and emissivity given a certain wavelength and the viewimg directions are specified. And KL only applies to systems in LTE (Local thermodynamic equlibrium) and KL breaks down under certain known conditions.

Besides that, your example with the sun and earth is good, since if KL did not hold it would be possible to have a system with a spontaneous NET flow of energy from the colder to the warmer object. Key Word being NET here.

In order to understand propagation of EM waves in the atmosphere and how the GHR works, a lot more is needed.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php
And that is only parts of it. Get Petty's A first Course in atmospheric radiation.


As was known over a century ago, if a black body is not ideal, then.....

https://photos.app.goo.gl/GH8Wmwq2PfUayB7H9

I don't consider the earth to be an ideal black body. The work was derived from Ohm's law and the radiance of a filament/wire.
Attached image:

18-01-2020 23:37
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
It's self explanatory I hope.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/EJRoFVg1woQUzgst9
Attached image:

18-01-2020 23:39
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
What was used to represent a black body?
18-01-2020 23:57
starryowl
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Would it be too much for you to explain what you posted in your own words or am I supposed to just accept a copied image as what you "believe"?
19-01-2020 02:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
MarcusR wrote: Kirchoffs law is in quantative terms the relation between absorptivity and emissivity given a certain wavelength and the viewimg directions are specified.

Given a certain wavelength? What is that relationship? How does the relationship for 420 nanometer wavelength differ from that of a 640 nanometer wavelength?

MarcusR wrote: KL breaks down under certain known conditions.

What are those conditions?

MarcusR wrote: In order to understand propagation of EM waves in the atmosphere and how the GHR works, a lot more is needed.

Lay out for us what is needed to understand Greenhouse Effect. First, you need to define Greenhouse Effect unambiguously or nothing else you write will have any meaning.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-01-2020 02:48
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
starryowl wrote:
Would it be too much for you to explain what you posted in your own words or am I supposed to just accept a copied image as what you "believe"?



You're new here. This is something that I've mentioned to other forum members.
The question is, what is an ideal black body that P/A=eσT4 applies to? I say the Earth is not an ideal black body. And that applying that equation relative to the surface of the Earth is the wrong application for it.
Since you probably don't know much about physics, that theory is better suited for things like radio, radar, etc. Then you can know your signal strength. And in what I posted, it gives an equation for a non-ideal black body. Even then I don't think the Earth would be that either.
And with those guys, they can consider what Prof. Carter wrote about.
19-01-2020 03:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
James___ wrote:The question is, what is an ideal black body that P/A=eσT4 applies to?

And that is the wrong question.

* P/A=eσT4 applies to all black bodies, not just ideal black bodies
* The "e" term is for emissivity which is how it applies to all bodies.
* The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which you correctly expressed, applies to all matter, always, everywhere.
* You get major style points for writing the P/A version.

James___ wrote:bI say the Earth is not an ideal black body.

... and you are correct. We have a winner! The earth is just a regular, non-ideal black body. You can even just say that it is a "body."


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-01-2020 03:49
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:The question is, what is an ideal black body that P/A=eσT4 applies to?

And that is the wrong question.

* P/A=eσT4 applies to all black bodies, not just ideal black bodies
* The "e" term is for emissivity which is how it applies to all bodies.
* The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which you correctly expressed, applies to all matter, always, everywhere.
* You get major style points for writing the P/A version.

James___ wrote:bI say the Earth is not an ideal black body.

... and you are correct. We have a winner! The earth is just a regular, non-ideal black body. You can even just say that it is a "body."


.



Now you're starting to sound like the IPCC.


A sensor should be able to be placed in the ground to measure IR. If it doesn't measure the amount that would agree with the equation we discussed, then we can conclude that the Earth is not a black body.
Aluminum, alloys and composites would not be ideal black bodies. With composites, unless they are a part of a coating like with a radar dish, might not matter.
Edited on 19-01-2020 04:40
19-01-2020 05:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
James___ wrote: A sensor should be able to be placed in the ground to measure IR.

James__, now you are conflating nature with difficulties in measuring.

You know that all matter in our world radiates IR. Yet the moment you try to measure one particular body you have to deal with IR coming at you from all angles. If you are outdoors, in any direction the air that is ten feet from you is emitting a certain frequency of IR in your direction whereas the air 100 meters behind that is radiating IR of a different frequency. Expand that for the entire 360 panorama and then tell me how any sensor can know to filter out all the IR that you don't "intend"?

Before you exaggerate what I am saying, just remember that yes, we can certainly acquire IR sensors but we will not know the accuracy because we will not know how much of the measured IR is what we are intending to measure and how much we should discard.

This is just a problem inherent in infrared.

James___ wrote: If it doesn't measure the amount that would agree with the equation we discussed, then we can conclude that the Earth is not a black body.

Nope. The earth is a black body, just not an ideal black body, and neither you nor I know its emissivity. There's nothing we can do.


James___ wrote: Aluminum, alloys and composites would not be ideal black bodies. With composites, unless they are a part of a coating like with a radar dish, might not matter.

It is a mistake to equate materials with bodies. A body is a discrete unit in blackbody science. Materials, as parts of bodies, don't tell us much.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-01-2020 06:28
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
IBDM, I am mindful that the Earth is an excellent ground. It can absorb a lightning strike without radiating that energy.
19-01-2020 06:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.

What's failing in global warming, is the focus on simple textbook definitions, and the failing to recognize that the planet and atmosphere are a lot more complex, a lot of other things going on, moving thermal energy around. Lot of those other mechanisms are simply dismissed as not being significant factors. A system, is the sum of all parts, you don't get to pick and chose, what works best for the principal you are trying to sell.


As complex as anyone perceives it to be, you can simplify it down to a single body (the Earth), another single body (the Sun), and the radiance into space. This is what Kirchoff's law is all about.

One need not concern themselves with every little molecule and every little photon.


Kirchoffs law is in quantative terms the relation between absorptivity and emissivity given a certain wavelength and the viewimg directions are specified.

Kirchoff's law has not frequency term and does not describe emissivity at all.
MarcusR wrote:
And KL only applies to systems in LTE (Local thermodynamic equlibrium) and KL breaks down under certain known conditions.

Nope. You can't just deny Kirchoff's law either. It works all the time.
MarcusR wrote:
Besides that, your example with the sun and earth is good, since if KL did not hold it would be possible to have a system with a spontaneous NET flow of energy from the colder to the warmer object. Key Word being NET here.

There is no such thing as net heat flow. Heat only flows from hot to cold. You are trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
MarcusR wrote:
In order to understand propagation of EM waves in the atmosphere and how the GHR works, a lot more is needed.

So far you have denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and Kirchoff's law. Why do you deny science?
MarcusR wrote:
And that is only parts of it. Get Petty's A first Course in atmospheric radiation.

You can't get away with referring me to your Holy Priest either.


The Parrot Killer
19-01-2020 06:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
James___ wrote: IBDM, I am mindful that the Earth is an excellent ground. It can absorb a lightning strike without radiating that energy.

... and the earth's atmosphere is a great generator of electrical potential for the surface to absorb.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-01-2020 15:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1302)
starryowl wrote:
Would it be too much for you to explain what you posted in your own words or am I supposed to just accept a copied image as what you "believe"?


I believe that a gas is not a black body.


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.
19-01-2020 17:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
spot wrote:I believe that a gas is not a black body.

It brings joy to my heart to see you agree with me. Don't think I didn't notice. And don't think that I don't appreciate your signature commemorating my teaching you this concept.

You totally rock.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-01-2020 18:54
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:I believe that a gas is not a black body.

It brings joy to my heart to see you agree with me. Don't think I didn't notice. And don't think that I don't appreciate your signature commemorating my teaching you this concept.

You totally rock.

.





https://photos.app.goo.gl/qzS1ojJNFVHcscBV9
Attached image:

19-01-2020 19:02
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
MarcusR wrote:I very good post if I may say so !


IBdaMann wrote:
I'm glad you like that message when it comes from him. So are you now going to provide the unambiguous defintion for the global climate?



At present the global climate is "inter-glacial". During both glacial and inter-glacial climatic periods, we experience "climate ripples". At present, we are experiencing a warm "climate ripple".
Can man's activity influence it? Man can. You are aware of this debate which is why you are here.
20-01-2020 04:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2257)
MarcusR wrote:...a body will not stop emitting EM radiation just due to the presence of another body with a higher temperature. Neither will a body stop absorbing EM radiation due to the presence of body with lower temperature.
Well said. This truth is implicit in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and it's use where there has never been a suggestion that a black body would someone how pause, reject or otherwise cease either it's absorption or emission of EMR.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.
Yes without a new source of energy it would drop in temperature and eventually reach "thermal equilibrium" with it's surrounds (assuming they were not dropping in temperature even faster). But thermal equilibrium has one body trading thermal energy with another, in equal amounts. It does not mean that either body magically shuts off it's ability to absorb/emitt EMR.

starryowl wrote:...agreed upon definitions for the words they are using...
We have the dictionary and science text books all in agreement. There is no problem here unless one is manufactured.

If someone is intent on manufacturing a problem, there is no stopping them. But you can expose them. (see my sig).

starryowl wrote:...why would the climate change espousers say that CO2 or methane has some inherent property that radiates thermal energy back towards the earth?...
Do you realize that all matter above the Earth's ground level, ALL MATTER, will radiate thermal energy to the ground and in every other direction? So it's not a special ability CO2 and methane have in emitting thermal energy as EMR. That's special about them is that they absorb EMR that leaves the ground of Earth while most of the air (Nitrogen and Oxygen) allow it to pass through (Transmit) it.
As usual Marcus R says it far better than I could, I'd follow his links above:
MarcusR wrote:...GHG's simply has the absorbtion spectra ...


HarveyH55 wrote:
There are various climates and regions across the globe, but there isn't a single, global climate. There isn't even a global temperature,
All objects have a temperature. Even the entire universe has a temperature. So both of those assertions are false Harvey. What is the difference between Denver and the entire planet?
Climate is long term weather (generally annual) and is composed of ranges, not single values, for all the dimensions of weather including temperature.
You can, and we do, compare the climate of Earth to the climate of Venus, just as we compare Denver to Death Valley. VERY relevant if you're planning a trip.
Can you imaging the Star Trek episode?:
"Is the planet habitable McCoy?"
"We don't know Jim, the climate of a planet cannot be know"


starryowl wrote:
Why are you using the term "NET". The energy flows in one direction only.
Why don't you take at look at this and tell me what you think starryowl. I think you and I, right now, in rooms of a comfortable temperature, are the most relate-able examples possible:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

"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 20-01-2020 04:36
20-01-2020 04:47
James___
★★★★★
(2249)
tmiddles wrote:
[
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't there be some point of equilibrium between the objects, their surroundings? A warmer body, would be emitting more energy, than it was receiving, at a faster rate, reducing it's potential.
Yes without a new source of energy it would drop in temperature and eventually reach "thermal equilibrium" with it's surrounds (assuming they were not dropping in temperature even faster). But thermal equilibrium has one body trading thermal energy with another, in equal amounts. It does not mean that either body magically shuts off it's ability to absorb/emitt EMR.



Harvey, is there equilibrium between cesium and plutonium? Why there is fission. Matter seeks an equilibrium. This might be something that nemodawson could best explain. This is what he knows best. This is within his field of study and he would know it better than any of us.

@nemo, am sorry but convection is different than fission.
20-01-2020 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are various climates and regions across the globe, but there isn't a single, global climate. There isn't even a global temperature,
All objects have a temperature. Even the entire universe has a temperature.

But you don't know what any of them are.
tmiddles wrote:
So both of those assertions are false Harvey. What is the difference between Denver and the entire planet?

Unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Climate is long term weather
Climate is not weather.
tmiddles wrote:
(generally annual)
Why annual? What makes annual so special?
tmiddles wrote:
and is composed of ranges, not single values,

Climate has no values. There are such things as desert climate, marine climate, tropical climate, etc. There are no values.
tmiddles wrote:
for all the dimensions of weather including temperature.
Weather is not made up of dimensions. Climate is not weather.
tmiddles wrote:
You can, and we do, compare the climate of Earth to the climate of Venus,
No such thing in either case. There is no such thing as a global climate.
tmiddles wrote:
just as we compare Denver to Death Valley.
Comparing an unknown value against another unknown value is meaningless.
tmiddles wrote:
VERY relevant if you're planning a trip.
Relevant to what?
tmiddles wrote:
Can you imaging the Star Trek episode?:
"Is the planet habitable McCoy?"
"We don't know Jim, the climate of a planet cannot be know"

Fiction is not reality, dude.
tmiddles wrote:
starryowl wrote:
Why are you using the term "NET". The energy flows in one direction only.
Why don't you take at look at this and tell me what you think starryowl. I think you and I, right now, in rooms of a comfortable temperature, are the most relate-able examples possible:
...deleted Holy Link...

Going back to the same Repetitious Distortions and Contextomy Fallacies, and ignoring the answers we gave you to your questions. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
21-01-2020 06:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2257)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are various climates and regions across the globe, but there isn't a single, global climate. There isn't even a global temperature,
All objects have a temperature. Even the entire universe has a temperature.

But you don't know what any of them are.
No ITN you're the one one that claims the temperature of objects cannot be know.

ITN/IBD challenge: Identify the temperature of anything in the real world. Anything at all.

Answer: They cannot.

Why? Because they are pretending that objects have a single precise temperature or we know nothing at all about the temperature. Since temperature is always a range and never a single value this means that nothing, according to ITN/IBD has a temperature that can be known at all.

I have asked many time on this board for an example from them of how to properly determine the temperature of anything and they dodge it every time.

Yes it is as stupid as it sounds.

"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
21-01-2020 08:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are various climates and regions across the globe, but there isn't a single, global climate. There isn't even a global temperature,
All objects have a temperature. Even the entire universe has a temperature.

But you don't know what any of them are.
No ITN you're the one one that claims the temperature of objects cannot be know.

Never did. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD challenge: Identify the temperature of anything in the real world. Anything at all.

Answer: They cannot.

Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Why? Because they are pretending that objects have a single precise temperature or we know nothing at all about the temperature.

Never did. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Since temperature is always a range and never a single value

Temperature is a single value.
tmiddles wrote:
this means that nothing, according to ITN/IBD has a temperature that can be known at all.

Never said any such thing. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
I have asked many time on this board for an example from them of how to properly determine the temperature of anything and they dodge it every time.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Yes it is as stupid as it sounds.

YALIFNAP


The Parrot Killer
21-01-2020 10:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2257)
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA
No answer as usual.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Definition of heat and heat pump:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
Definition of Climate Change9910-12-2019 17:21
Working definition of climate change6007-12-2019 20:24
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
▲ 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