Remember me
▼ Content

Energy and resource crisis in the future



Page 3 of 3<123
30-11-2019 20:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Xadoman wrote: But I can not still understand what is wrong in his calculations.

Xadoman, this is how religions work. They claim to answer questions you cannot answer, e.g. what happens when you die? Christians, for example, will tell you that it depends on various aspects of how you live your life because that is their faith. The point is that it starts with you having a question that you cannot answer yourself and you turning to others for those answers.

This is an opportunity for abuse by dishonest people who simply want to manipulate others for wealth and power. One thing they do is ask you a question you cannot answer ... and then assure you that if you adopt their faith and BELIEVE as they do, those answers and other great wisdom will be bequeathed unto thee. In the case of Global Warming, all they ask in return is merely your complete obedience, complete intolerance of any view that differs in the slightest from what you are directed to BELIEVE and that you HATE with full intensity whomever you are ordered to HATE. That's all. For this small price you will be authorized by the Church to speak on behalf of all the smart people on the planet. You will get to call anyone else who does not OBEY as you do a "thhhtooopid denier." You will be reassured that you are not a loser and that despite all those years of not learning any science or math, you are now a genius in them both! Congratulations!

... and all this just because you trusted someone else to do your thinking for you and to tell you [bully you into accepting] the answer to a question you couldn't answer yourself (that you weren't really asking in the first place).

Are you interested in joining the Church of Global Warming? If so, you just happen to be wondering about one of the "golden ticket" questions for priority placement with Global Warming recruiters indoctrinators Climate Scientists. If you are looking for feelings of belonging, and assurances that you are an important genius, then you've got your ticket to ride.


... or maybe on the other hand you'd rather do something productive with your life. To each his own.


.


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
02-12-2019 11:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, I saw your thread about body in room and I must say I am truly puzzled now how the body does not freeze in the room. I do not belive in the climate hysteria anymore though.

There is nothing to be puzzled about. Of course there is no reason radiance from a cooler object can't be absorbed by a warmer one.

Note the post later in that topic with 12 references to back that up (to go along with personal experience and common sense):
TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

This DOES NOT mean that the world is ending or that the doom and gloom theories on global warming are right. It just means that ITN/IBD are totally full of it.

There are 3 groups:
Consensus: Accept the IPCC gospel on dire Global Warming
Skeptics: Question that gospel with everything from proof it's not founded to proof it's wrong
Deniers: Throw out wacked out, unsupported and dead wrong arguments (like saying that every textbook on thermodynamics is wrong)

IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman, this is how religions work....
So just to clarify. The "Religeous" text I copy and pasted the person in a room problem from was a college physics text book. (see about for that and 11 more).

Note that ITN/IBD have nothing to say on how you don't freeze to death. Should be simple right? And it is! As the text book shows.

"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
02-12-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, I saw your thread about body in room and I must say I am truly puzzled now how the body does not freeze in the room. I do not belive in the climate hysteria anymore though.

There is nothing to be puzzled about. Of course there is no reason radiance from a cooler object can't be absorbed by a warmer one.

Yes there is. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Note the post later in that topic with 12 references to back that up (to go along with personal experience and common sense):

1) A reference is not a proof.
2) Your problem is the misinterpretation of your own references. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
This DOES NOT mean that the world is ending or that the doom and gloom theories on global warming are right.
There are no theories on 'global warming'. Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
It just means that ITN/IBD are totally full of it.
Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
There are 3 groups:
Consensus: Accept the IPCC gospel on dire Global Warming
Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
Skeptics: Question that gospel with everything from proof it's not founded to proof it's wrong
You don't even know what a proof is. You might try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
Deniers: Throw out wacked out, unsupported and dead wrong arguments (like saying that every textbook on thermodynamics is wrong)

No one has said that at all. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman, this is how religions work....
So just to clarify. The "Religeous" text I copy and pasted the person in a room problem from was a college physics text book. (see about for that and 11 more).
RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Note that ITN/IBD have nothing to say on how you don't freeze to death.
Should be simple right?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
And it is! As the text book shows.

Not what you think it does. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
08-12-2019 15:05
montellmartins0007
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
We must prefer the electric items except fuel
08-12-2019 20:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman, this is how religions work....

So just to clarify. The "Religeous" text I copy and pasted the person in a room problem from was a college physics text book.

Just as a reminder, you have still not presented a repeatable example of thermal energy observably flowing specifically from cooler to warmer, albeit with a greater amount of thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler, i.e. what you claim this textbook example is demonstrating. How many months has it been? Are we closing in on four months? Were you planning on providing a repeatable example sometime prior to 2020? I'm not the only one who wants to continue discussing this with you but the ball always seems to go flat the moment it is in your court. Could you pump some air into it or something and get the ball rolling again?

On 28 August 2019, IBdaMann wrote: So, you and I are in and endless loop. Every time you bring up this example, I will simply copy-paste the following:

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

... and I encourage everyone else to do the same until you meet your burden to support your claim, per the scientific method.

On 2 September 2019: GasGuzzler wrote: Still waiting for that repeatable example of cooler flowing backwards to warmer.

On 4 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote: If you are saying that "some" heat flows from cold to hot, just less than that which is flowing from hot to cold, then you are acknowledging that some heat flows from cold to hot, i.e. exactly what Into the Night said. Your response should have been "Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and here's the simple repeatable experiment that so demonstrates this principle."

So, devise a repeatable demonstration that focuses on heat flowing from cold to hot and I'll do it.

On 4 September 2019, Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example


But you've never said what that is.

He doesn't have to. YOU have to. He is claiming nothing. YOU are claiming to have falsified the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The burden of proof is on YOU.

On 5 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote:Hello! We are all still waiting for that repeatable example.

On 20 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?

Let's establish that you are correct so we can move forward. Is that fair or is that asking too much?

On 21 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]: Should I publicly apologize to you for any inconvenience the ball may have caused you by being in your court for months?

I see you are still assigning positions to me that are not mine and still pretending to speak for every text book.

If only you would devote a flake of that effort to providing a repeatable example of what you are discussing then we could continue.

On 23 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]: My question: what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things in which we can isolate the thermal energy flowing from colder to warmer and confirm that you are absolutely correct so that we can resume the discussion so I can get to the part of the discussion into which I want to delve and answer your question above as well?

I'm thinking E-Z-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy .

On 23 September 2019, Into the Night wrote [to tmiddles]:BTW, when are you going to answer IBdaMann's question he put to you?

On 26 September 2019, GasGuzzler wrote:I have also learned that science is falsifiable. It can't be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. Therefore, anyone with opposite views must be heard. There is that chance they have falsified a theory of science. However, in order to do so, they must have a repeatable example.

You would gain some credibility back if you could do this....you know, the heat flowing backwards thing.

On 7 October 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]:Yes, you used a non-repeatable illustration to draw false larger conclusions ... and then you quickly shut down the discussion when scrutiny was applied.

I was so hoping to tell you that what happens is exactly what your repeatable example shows ... which presumably was going to support your point ... but then you quickly shut down the discussion before providing me that repeatable example.

Are you saying that you now have one that you are going to share and that we should re-engage the conversation?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: That's because "warming" and "heat" refer to an increase in the grand total of thermal energy. ...[snip] ... "WARMING" and "HEAT" refer to the NET effect.

Sure. Of course. Let's take a look at a simple repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body a warmer body ... as a starting point.

Any repeatable example you want.

[prediction: I sense a non-repeatable example forthcoming]


Here in December 2019 we are still waiting for your repeatable example of thermal energy ... flowing from cooler to warmer ... that can be isolated and observed/noted ... of course accompanying some GREATER AMOUNT of thermal energy flowing in the opposite direction, i.e. from warmer to cooler.

This is crucial to you establishing your "NET FLOW" argument. You refuse to simply discuss thermal energy flowing ONLY from warmer to cooler per the current understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (or you claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states your understanding) therefore several of us wish to learn from you with just one of the many repeatable examples you surely must have.


[*find-STILLNOREPEATABLEEXAMPLE]

.


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
09-12-2019 03:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
your "NET FLOW" argument.
.
It's not "my" net flow argument.TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

A person in a room IS a repeatable example. It's perfect in my opinion as it could not be more relatable to all of us.

You are just playing games.

You have never presented an example of what you call a repeatable example.

You have never found any data to be valid.

You are not an authority, judge or standard setter of any kind.

You and ITN have been thoroughly and completely debunked and have had no response to it. Other than to lie and claim you responded without a quote or link.

You can't explain how a person in a room maintains body temperature. You're a fraud.

Good luck getting a game going, I will never play hide the ball with you again.


"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 09-12-2019 04:00
09-12-2019 06:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: It's not "my" net flow argument.

Yes, it's yours. On this forum, you own it.

Do you have a repeatable example showing SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer?

If you don't know what "repeatable" means then don't claim that you know that your non-repeatable example is repeatable.


.


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
09-12-2019 09:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you don't know what "repeatable" means...
Oh!! IBD is hiding the ball again! Oh what oh what might he mean? Maybe I can try to look for this easter egg of hidden IBD knowledge in past posts. But IBD never says anything of consequence? Oh what a riddle.

Guess what IBD. I don't care about your games anymore. Play with yourself.

"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 09-12-2019 09:56
09-12-2019 12:49
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)

Yes there is. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That is a common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Consider the following example
1. You have a isolated system (in equlibirum) with 3 bodies, one at 320K, one at 300K and one at 280K. The bodies are besides that physically equal.
2. Now, lets say a photon of i.e 15um is emitted from the body at 300K. It travels in direction towards the 280K body and is absorbed by the latter. Thus ~0,082 eV of energy is transfered from the body with 300K to the body of 280K
3. Assume that another 15 um photon is emitted from the 300K body but it travels towards the 320K body. What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Ultimately the net flow of energy weil, mean that all three bodies will be at 300K. But that does NOT mean that any body can choose NOT to absorb a i.e 15 um photon depending upon the temperature of the body of origin. So radiative heat transfer within the earth/atmosphere system does not violate the 2nd law.

There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. I can recomend Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke / Sonntag.
09-12-2019 15:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: Guess what IBD. I don't care about your games anymore. Play with yourself.

Will you at least throw the ball back before you storm off pouting so others can use it?

.


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
09-12-2019 15:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
MarcusR wrote: That is a common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Unfortunately, the error resides with you. Your problem is in your misunderstanding of what ultimately happens with the thermal energy. It is the point that I wanted to cover with tmiddles months ago but he would immediately shut down the discussion completely rather than "go there."

I'd be happy to discuss it with you but the problem lies in using the word "net." Thermal energy does not flow from cooler to warmer.


MarcusR wrote: Consider the following example

OK ... and your problem is here:

MarcusR wrote:Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Nope. To understand exactly what goes on you have to take a quantum view. The photon is destroyed, yes. The energy that was the photon is no longer a photon. Any thermal energy is indistinguishable from any other thermal energy. In fact, you can take the photons out of the picture and simply look at levels of thermal energy in each body. At the moment you say the photon strikes the body, there is no ~0.082 eV surge in the body's amount of thermal energy. There will always remain a steady flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. As such, you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

.


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
09-12-2019 18:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
your "NET FLOW" argument.
It's not "my" net flow argument.

It's all yours. You are the only one making it.
tmiddles wrote:
A person in a room IS a repeatable example.

A person in a room is a person in a room. Not an example at all.
tmiddles wrote:
It's perfect in my opinion as it could not be more relatable to all of us.

Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You are just playing games.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You have never presented an example of what you call a repeatable example.

YOU are the one making the argument. YOU have to provide the example.
tmiddles wrote:
You have never found any data to be valid.

We are not making your argument. We don't need to.
tmiddles wrote:
You are not an authority, judge or standard setter of any kind.

We don't need to be. YOU are making the argument. YOU need to provide the example.
Burden of proof fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You and ITN have been thoroughly and completely debunked and have had no response to it. Other than to lie and claim you responded without a quote or link.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You can't explain how a person in a room maintains body temperature. You're a fraud.

Several people here already have. RQAA. YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
Good luck getting a game going, I will never play hide the ball with you again.

Irrelevance fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 18:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you don't know what "repeatable" means...
Oh!! IBD is hiding the ball again! Oh what oh what might he mean? Maybe I can try to look for this easter egg of hidden IBD knowledge in past posts. But IBD never says anything of consequence? Oh what a riddle.

Guess what IBD. I don't care about your games anymore. Play with yourself.



RDCF. YALIFNAP.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 18:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
MarcusR wrote:

Yes there is. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That is a common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Consider the following example
1. You have a isolated system (in equlibirum) with 3 bodies, one at 320K, one at 300K and one at 280K. The bodies are besides that physically equal.
2. Now, lets say a photon of i.e 15um is emitted from the body at 300K. It travels in direction towards the 280K body and is absorbed by the latter. Thus ~0,082 eV of energy is transfered from the body with 300K to the body of 280K
3. Assume that another 15 um photon is emitted from the 300K body but it travels towards the 320K body. What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Ultimately the net flow of energy weil, mean that all three bodies will be at 300K. But that does NOT mean that any body can choose NOT to absorb a i.e 15 um photon depending upon the temperature of the body of origin. So radiative heat transfer within the earth/atmosphere system does not violate the 2nd law.

There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. I can recomend Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke / Sonntag.


There is no 'net flow' of heat. Not all photons are the same. You are assuming they are.

No molecule will absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule itself.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-12-2019 18:25
10-12-2019 07:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
MarcusR wrote:What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? ...absorbed...
Very nice example MarcusR. I hope you'll stick around to discuss more than what every Physics text book affirms. You write well.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all. It's a deliberately manufactured "poison pill" some dishonest deniers try to inject into the debate.

It's been well exposed on this forum before. See below:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

No matter what they will never address the question of what happens when two objects are at equilibrium as it's there that such a wacky concept really gets funny. Of course this denial of net radiative transfer is not supported anywhere. YET you will see this strange angle bandied about online so I do think it's worth clearly exposing it for the BS it is.

Not to mention this weird concept makes a "black body" an impossibility since it would cease to absorb any radiance from lower temperature object, thereby ceasing to be a black body.

Of course NET thermal transfer being what HEAT is has been understood, demonstrated and accepted since Pierre Provost established it over 239 years ago. (see in my sig). Anyway, it's sad to debate elementary physics and the dictionary with dishonest posters.

I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

These jokers have had no response to any of this other than to claim they had a response which they won't quote or link to. I know this is probably depressing news about the forum but I hope you'll stay.

"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 10-12-2019 07:23
10-12-2019 16:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? ...absorbed...
Very nice example MarcusR. I hope you'll stick around to discuss more than what every Physics text book affirms. You write well.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all. It's a deliberately manufactured "poison pill" some dishonest deniers try to inject into the debate.

It's been well exposed on this forum before. See below:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

No matter what they will never address the question of what happens when two objects are at equilibrium as it's there that such a wacky concept really gets funny. Of course this denial of net radiative transfer is not supported anywhere. YET you will see this strange angle bandied about online so I do think it's worth clearly exposing it for the BS it is.

Still trying to change the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Not to mention this weird concept makes a "black body" an impossibility since it would cease to absorb any radiance from lower temperature object, thereby ceasing to be a black body.

You are attempting to remove the emissivity constant from the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You don't get to change laws of physics.
tmiddles wrote:
Of course NET thermal transfer being what HEAT is has been understood, demonstrated and accepted since Pierre Provost established it over 239 years ago. (see in my sig). Anyway, it's sad to debate elementary physics and the dictionary with dishonest posters.

There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows from hot to cold. You don't get to just discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics either.
tmiddles wrote:
I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

And you continue to misquote these references. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
These jokers have had no response to any of this other than to claim they had a response which they won't quote or link to. I know this is probably depressing news about the forum but I hope you'll stay.

We have already shown you all three equations numerous times. RQAA. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 00:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

And you continue to misquote these references.
Note that ITN makes no attempt to point out the error. Just random hand waving that "something went wrong". He will also lie and claim he did point it out. But nope. Never did. It's total BS.

Those 12 references are primarily college level text books.
11-12-2019 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

And you continue to misquote these references.
Note that ITN makes no attempt to point out the error.

Already did. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Just random hand waving that "something went wrong".

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
He will also lie and claim he did point it out. But nope. Never did. It's total BS.

Lie. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Those 12 references are primarily college level text books.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Energy and resource crisis in the future:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate crisis requires wartime-style mobilisation, says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz126-11-2019 17:02
CNN: Wind farms of the future may be underwater202-05-2019 02:51
O2C predicted to rise in the future?1622-04-2019 22:19
Fed researcher warns climate change could spur financial crisis027-03-2019 15:50
EPA chief says water issues a bigger crisis than climate change621-03-2019 21:01
Articles
Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis
Barack Obama: Securing Our Energy Future
▲ 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