| Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can be redistributed.30-04-2017 20:11 |
Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
(1085) |
The Sun is the only source of heat energy. CO2 does not make heat energy out of thin air. CO2 makes day cooler and night warmer compared to the Moon. |
| 05-05-2017 21:44 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The Sun is the only source of heat energy. CO2 does not make heat energy out of thin air. CO2 makes day cooler and night warmer compared to the Moon.
I'm not sure about your meanings.
About 43% of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. Of that 2/3rds or 29% of the heat is removed via conduction/convection. Since CO2 has a higher latent heat contend than O2 or N it takes approximately twice as long to heat up to the same temperature as O2 or N.
But after it does it is also caught in the conduction process and begins to rise. As it rises it conducts heat to the atmospheric gases around it which are 2,500 times more common. This means that in the normal closed system it would drop temperature more rapidly and fall. But the atmosphere is so dense that the rising air drags the rare CO2 molecules along with it.
So as it's rising it is getting rid of even more heat because the other atmospheric components also are low heat and being dragged along and the CO2 contains even more heat which it can transfer through simple conduction.
In the evening after the Sun sets there is no more heat input and in the higher colder atmosphere everything cools and starts dropping. CO2 is no different.
H2O on the other hand is one of the lighter molecules. It holds approximately 1000 times the heat of CO2 and it can liquefy into water droplets sitting near or even above the Tropopause. It is these clouds that reflect a great deal of the sunlight away from the Earth in daylight.
While O2 is extremely light, it also doesn't hold much heat and convection can carry it down rapidly.
So I really do not see any mechanism for CO2 to have any real effect on atmospheric heating or cooling. Most especially since it is a trace gas. And even MORE importantly we are being told that the different between 1896 and now is a difference in H2O to CO2 of 0.025%.
There is no science here - only some sort of religion. |
| 05-05-2017 22:38 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The Sun is the only source of heat energy. CO2 does not make heat energy out of thin air. CO2 makes day cooler and night warmer compared to the Moon.
I'm not sure about your meanings.
About 43% of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. Of that 2/3rds or 29% of the heat is removed via conduction/convection. Since CO2 has a higher latent heat contend than O2 or N it takes approximately twice as long to heat up to the same temperature as O2 or N.
But after it does it is also caught in the conduction process and begins to rise. As it rises it conducts heat to the atmospheric gases around it which are 2,500 times more common. This means that in the normal closed system it would drop temperature more rapidly and fall. But the atmosphere is so dense that the rising air drags the rare CO2 molecules along with it.
So as it's rising it is getting rid of even more heat because the other atmospheric components also are low heat and being dragged along and the CO2 contains even more heat which it can transfer through simple conduction.
In the evening after the Sun sets there is no more heat input and in the higher colder atmosphere everything cools and starts dropping. CO2 is no different.
H2O on the other hand is one of the lighter molecules. It holds approximately 1000 times the heat of CO2 and it can liquefy into water droplets sitting near or even above the Tropopause. It is these clouds that reflect a great deal of the sunlight away from the Earth in daylight.
While O2 is extremely light, it also doesn't hold much heat and convection can carry it down rapidly.
So I really do not see any mechanism for CO2 to have any real effect on atmospheric heating or cooling. Most especially since it is a trace gas. And even MORE importantly we are being told that the different between 1896 and now is a difference in H2O to CO2 of 0.025%.
There is no science here - only some sort of religion.
A bit wordy, but essentially correct.
A simpler way to explain it:
The Earth has an atmosphere. It is mass. It takes time to heat and cool it. The 'top' of the atmosphere tends to follow temperatures like the Moon or the International Space Station skin temperature. The surface is on the other 'end' of the heating and cooling process.
Clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high specific heat. They are like thermal 'anvils' in the sky. They take longer to heat and cool, and they conduct heat through them better than dry air.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-05-2017 00:02 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The Sun is the only source of heat energy. CO2 does not make heat energy out of thin air. CO2 makes day cooler and night warmer compared to the Moon.
I'm not sure about your meanings.
About 43% of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. Of that 2/3rds or 29% of the heat is removed via conduction/convection. Since CO2 has a higher latent heat contend than O2 or N it takes approximately twice as long to heat up to the same temperature as O2 or N.
But after it does it is also caught in the conduction process and begins to rise. As it rises it conducts heat to the atmospheric gases around it which are 2,500 times more common. This means that in the normal closed system it would drop temperature more rapidly and fall. But the atmosphere is so dense that the rising air drags the rare CO2 molecules along with it.
So as it's rising it is getting rid of even more heat because the other atmospheric components also are low heat and being dragged along and the CO2 contains even more heat which it can transfer through simple conduction.
In the evening after the Sun sets there is no more heat input and in the higher colder atmosphere everything cools and starts dropping. CO2 is no different.
H2O on the other hand is one of the lighter molecules. It holds approximately 1000 times the heat of CO2 and it can liquefy into water droplets sitting near or even above the Tropopause. It is these clouds that reflect a great deal of the sunlight away from the Earth in daylight.
While O2 is extremely light, it also doesn't hold much heat and convection can carry it down rapidly.
So I really do not see any mechanism for CO2 to have any real effect on atmospheric heating or cooling. Most especially since it is a trace gas. And even MORE importantly we are being told that the different between 1896 and now is a difference in H2O to CO2 of 0.025%.
There is no science here - only some sort of religion.
A bit wordy, but essentially correct.
A simpler way to explain it:
The Earth has an atmosphere. It is mass. It takes time to heat and cool it. The 'top' of the atmosphere tends to follow temperatures like the Moon or the International Space Station skin temperature. The surface is on the other 'end' of the heating and cooling process.
Clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high specific heat. They are like thermal 'anvils' in the sky. They take longer to heat and cool, and they conduct heat through them better than dry air.
If they conduct heat through them better than dry air why do clouds exist? Why did Tyndall get the findings he described? |
| 06-05-2017 00:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The Sun is the only source of heat energy. CO2 does not make heat energy out of thin air. CO2 makes day cooler and night warmer compared to the Moon.
I'm not sure about your meanings.
About 43% of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. Of that 2/3rds or 29% of the heat is removed via conduction/convection. Since CO2 has a higher latent heat contend than O2 or N it takes approximately twice as long to heat up to the same temperature as O2 or N.
But after it does it is also caught in the conduction process and begins to rise. As it rises it conducts heat to the atmospheric gases around it which are 2,500 times more common. This means that in the normal closed system it would drop temperature more rapidly and fall. But the atmosphere is so dense that the rising air drags the rare CO2 molecules along with it.
So as it's rising it is getting rid of even more heat because the other atmospheric components also are low heat and being dragged along and the CO2 contains even more heat which it can transfer through simple conduction.
In the evening after the Sun sets there is no more heat input and in the higher colder atmosphere everything cools and starts dropping. CO2 is no different.
H2O on the other hand is one of the lighter molecules. It holds approximately 1000 times the heat of CO2 and it can liquefy into water droplets sitting near or even above the Tropopause. It is these clouds that reflect a great deal of the sunlight away from the Earth in daylight.
While O2 is extremely light, it also doesn't hold much heat and convection can carry it down rapidly.
So I really do not see any mechanism for CO2 to have any real effect on atmospheric heating or cooling. Most especially since it is a trace gas. And even MORE importantly we are being told that the different between 1896 and now is a difference in H2O to CO2 of 0.025%.
There is no science here - only some sort of religion.
A bit wordy, but essentially correct.
A simpler way to explain it:
The Earth has an atmosphere. It is mass. It takes time to heat and cool it. The 'top' of the atmosphere tends to follow temperatures like the Moon or the International Space Station skin temperature. The surface is on the other 'end' of the heating and cooling process.
Clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high specific heat. They are like thermal 'anvils' in the sky. They take longer to heat and cool, and they conduct heat through them better than dry air.
If they conduct heat through them better than dry air why do clouds exist? Why did Tyndall get the findings he described?
Because clouds require so much more heat to increase the same temperature. I thought your understanding of specific heat would answer the question about Tyndall already for you.
Clouds exist because air cools enough as it rises for the water vapor in it to condense out and become visible.
That's why clouds are generally flat on the bottom. This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude.
That visible water may or may not get thrown further aloft by convection, giving rise to the 'heaped up' appearance of cumulo clouds or the flat style of the stratus clouds.
The top of the cloud happens because the air has dried (lost water vapor) sufficiently to not condense out anymore.
Convective activity causes clouds to suck sideways, not just from below. This tends to separate the clouds from each other if it's dry enough.
Clouds can form as low as zero feet in altitude. We call that special case 'fog'.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-05-2017 00:49 |
|
| 06-05-2017 01:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The Sun is the only source of heat energy. CO2 does not make heat energy out of thin air. CO2 makes day cooler and night warmer compared to the Moon.
I'm not sure about your meanings.
About 43% of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. Of that 2/3rds or 29% of the heat is removed via conduction/convection. Since CO2 has a higher latent heat contend than O2 or N it takes approximately twice as long to heat up to the same temperature as O2 or N.
But after it does it is also caught in the conduction process and begins to rise. As it rises it conducts heat to the atmospheric gases around it which are 2,500 times more common. This means that in the normal closed system it would drop temperature more rapidly and fall. But the atmosphere is so dense that the rising air drags the rare CO2 molecules along with it.
So as it's rising it is getting rid of even more heat because the other atmospheric components also are low heat and being dragged along and the CO2 contains even more heat which it can transfer through simple conduction.
In the evening after the Sun sets there is no more heat input and in the higher colder atmosphere everything cools and starts dropping. CO2 is no different.
H2O on the other hand is one of the lighter molecules. It holds approximately 1000 times the heat of CO2 and it can liquefy into water droplets sitting near or even above the Tropopause. It is these clouds that reflect a great deal of the sunlight away from the Earth in daylight.
While O2 is extremely light, it also doesn't hold much heat and convection can carry it down rapidly.
So I really do not see any mechanism for CO2 to have any real effect on atmospheric heating or cooling. Most especially since it is a trace gas. And even MORE importantly we are being told that the different between 1896 and now is a difference in H2O to CO2 of 0.025%.
There is no science here - only some sort of religion.
A bit wordy, but essentially correct.
A simpler way to explain it:
The Earth has an atmosphere. It is mass. It takes time to heat and cool it. The 'top' of the atmosphere tends to follow temperatures like the Moon or the International Space Station skin temperature. The surface is on the other 'end' of the heating and cooling process.
Clouds are liquid water (or ice) and have a high specific heat. They are like thermal 'anvils' in the sky. They take longer to heat and cool, and they conduct heat through them better than dry air.
If they conduct heat through them better than dry air why do clouds exist? Why did Tyndall get the findings he described?
Because clouds require so much more heat to increase the same temperature. I thought your understanding of specific heat would answer the question about Tyndall already for you.
Clouds exist because air cools enough as it rises for the water vapor in it to condense out and become visible.
That's why clouds are generally flat on the bottom. This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude.
That visible water may or may not get thrown further aloft by convection, giving rise to the 'heaped up' appearance of cumulo clouds or the flat style of the stratus clouds.
The top of the cloud happens because the air has dried (lost water vapor) sufficiently to not condense out anymore.
Convective activity causes clouds to suck sideways, not just from below. This tends to separate the clouds from each other if it's dry enough.
Clouds can form as low as zero feet in altitude. We call that special case 'fog'.
Why you have a Wikipedia education concerning clouds. What makes you think that "This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude."? In fact clouds can form at any altitude from ground level to 15 or so km. altitude.
"The amount of thermal radiation emitted increases rapidly and the principal frequency of the radiation becomes higher with increasing temperatures". The Stefan–Boltzmann constant can be used to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody, which absorbs all of the radiant energy that hits it, and will emit all the radiant energy. Furthermore, the Stefan–Boltzmann constant allows for temperature (K) to be converted to units for intensity (W m−2), which is power per unit area.
Wait a minute - "principle frequency"? Does that mean that the higher and lower frequencies do not exist or that they FALL OFF in a standard curve? What do you suppose that curve would be?
Do you see anywhere in that definition that states anything about this radiation being in any small units of your choosing? |
| 06-05-2017 01:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Because clouds require so much more heat to increase the same temperature. I thought your understanding of specific heat would answer the question about Tyndall already for you.
Clouds exist because air cools enough as it rises for the water vapor in it to condense out and become visible.
That's why clouds are generally flat on the bottom. This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude.
That visible water may or may not get thrown further aloft by convection, giving rise to the 'heaped up' appearance of cumulo clouds or the flat style of the stratus clouds.
The top of the cloud happens because the air has dried (lost water vapor) sufficiently to not condense out anymore.
Convective activity causes clouds to suck sideways, not just from below. This tends to separate the clouds from each other if it's dry enough.
Clouds can form as low as zero feet in altitude. We call that special case 'fog'.
Wake wrote:
Why you have a Wikipedia education concerning clouds.
I know more about clouds than those idiots! I just gave a simple summary here of the relevant parts you seem to have trouble with.
Wake wrote:
What makes you think that "This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude."?
Look at the cloud. See how it tends to be flatter on the bottom of it? The mass of rising air that created it tends to be somewhat uniform in dew point and temperature. As that air rises, the temperature tends to reach the dew point at the same general altitude.
Wake wrote:
In fact clouds can form at any altitude from ground level to 15 or so km. altitude.
They can form in the stratosphere and even in the mesosphere also. Just not as easily. Clouds have formed as high as 85 km. These clouds are generally formed by radiation instead of by convection like tropospheric clouds.
Wake wrote:
"The amount of thermal radiation emitted increases rapidly and the principal frequency of the radiation becomes higher with increasing temperatures".
Correct. Has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The Stefan–Boltzmann constant can be used to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody, which absorbs all of the radiant energy that hits it, and will emit all the radiant energy. Furthermore, the Stefan–Boltzmann constant allows for temperature (K) to be converted to units for intensity (W m−2), which is power per unit area.
Which is a scalar value. No 'curve' exists for a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Wait a minute - "principle frequency"? Does that mean that the higher and lower frequencies do not exist or that they FALL OFF in a standard curve? What do you suppose that curve would be?
Not the definition of a bell curve. The definition of the curve and how the curve is formed is actually a mathematical one. It is the result of a paired or multiply coupled randR. In statistics, it is a paired randR. There, it is simply known as the 'X' curve.
Wake wrote:
Do you see anywhere in that definition that states anything about this radiation being in any small units of your choosing?
You seem to be confusing Planck's law, Wien's displacement law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Planck's law discusses the energy of individual photons as they are related to temperature.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law discusses the total energy of all combined frequencies related to temperature. It comes out of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies and adjusted for emissivity. It refers to many photons.
The Wien displacement law is probably what you want if you want to chase curves and temperatures. You can determine the curve (over the domain of the spectral lines of the substance) given a temperature.
You can't go back so easily, since you are now talking about probability math.
The Wien displacement law is useful for approximating purely radiative bodies like the Sun. It is a probability, however, based on the same curve.
It does not work for reflective bodies such as planets.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-05-2017 01:59 |
| 06-05-2017 04:56 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Because clouds require so much more heat to increase the same temperature. I thought your understanding of specific heat would answer the question about Tyndall already for you.
Clouds exist because air cools enough as it rises for the water vapor in it to condense out and become visible.
That's why clouds are generally flat on the bottom. This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude.
That visible water may or may not get thrown further aloft by convection, giving rise to the 'heaped up' appearance of cumulo clouds or the flat style of the stratus clouds.
The top of the cloud happens because the air has dried (lost water vapor) sufficiently to not condense out anymore.
Convective activity causes clouds to suck sideways, not just from below. This tends to separate the clouds from each other if it's dry enough.
Clouds can form as low as zero feet in altitude. We call that special case 'fog'.
Wake wrote:
Why you have a Wikipedia education concerning clouds.
I know more about clouds than those idiots! I just gave a simple summary here of the relevant parts you seem to have trouble with.
Wake wrote:
What makes you think that "This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude."?
Look at the cloud. See how it tends to be flatter on the bottom of it? The mass of rising air that created it tends to be somewhat uniform in dew point and temperature. As that air rises, the temperature tends to reach the dew point at the same general altitude.
Wake wrote:
In fact clouds can form at any altitude from ground level to 15 or so km. altitude.
They can form in the stratosphere and even in the mesosphere also. Just not as easily. Clouds have formed as high as 85 km. These clouds are generally formed by radiation instead of by convection like tropospheric clouds.
Wake wrote:
"The amount of thermal radiation emitted increases rapidly and the principal frequency of the radiation becomes higher with increasing temperatures".
Correct. Has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The Stefan–Boltzmann constant can be used to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody, which absorbs all of the radiant energy that hits it, and will emit all the radiant energy. Furthermore, the Stefan–Boltzmann constant allows for temperature (K) to be converted to units for intensity (W m−2), which is power per unit area.
Which is a scalar value. No 'curve' exists for a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Wait a minute - "principle frequency"? Does that mean that the higher and lower frequencies do not exist or that they FALL OFF in a standard curve? What do you suppose that curve would be?
Not the definition of a bell curve. The definition of the curve and how the curve is formed is actually a mathematical one. It is the result of a paired or multiply coupled randR. In statistics, it is a paired randR. There, it is simply known as the 'X' curve.
Wake wrote:
Do you see anywhere in that definition that states anything about this radiation being in any small units of your choosing?
You seem to be confusing Planck's law, Wien's displacement law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Planck's law discusses the energy of individual photons as they are related to temperature.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law discusses the total energy of all combined frequencies related to temperature. It comes out of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies and adjusted for emissivity. It refers to many photons.
The Wien displacement law is probably what you want if you want to chase curves and temperatures. You can determine the curve (over the domain of the spectral lines of the substance) given a temperature.
You can't go back so easily, since you are now talking about probability math.
The Wien displacement law is useful for approximating purely radiative bodies like the Sun. It is a probability, however, based on the same curve.
It does not work for reflective bodies such as planets.
Then you don't mind quoting WHERE is says "photons" and not W/m^2. Oh, wait, you want to change your laws in midstream. |
| 08-05-2017 00:36 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law discusses the total energy of all combined frequencies related to temperature. It comes out of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies and adjusted for emissivity. It refers to many photons.
You ought to get off of that high horse because the Stefan-Boltzmann equation includes the constant for emissivity.
That means that it can be used FOR A SINGLE MOLECULE and not any such thing such as only a whole Earth and not part of the atmosphere. |
| 08-05-2017 01:34 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Because clouds require so much more heat to increase the same temperature. I thought your understanding of specific heat would answer the question about Tyndall already for you.
Clouds exist because air cools enough as it rises for the water vapor in it to condense out and become visible.
That's why clouds are generally flat on the bottom. This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude.
That visible water may or may not get thrown further aloft by convection, giving rise to the 'heaped up' appearance of cumulo clouds or the flat style of the stratus clouds.
The top of the cloud happens because the air has dried (lost water vapor) sufficiently to not condense out anymore.
Convective activity causes clouds to suck sideways, not just from below. This tends to separate the clouds from each other if it's dry enough.
Clouds can form as low as zero feet in altitude. We call that special case 'fog'.
Wake wrote:
Why you have a Wikipedia education concerning clouds.
I know more about clouds than those idiots! I just gave a simple summary here of the relevant parts you seem to have trouble with.
Wake wrote:
What makes you think that "This tends to happen at (or near) the same altitude."?
Look at the cloud. See how it tends to be flatter on the bottom of it? The mass of rising air that created it tends to be somewhat uniform in dew point and temperature. As that air rises, the temperature tends to reach the dew point at the same general altitude.
Wake wrote:
In fact clouds can form at any altitude from ground level to 15 or so km. altitude.
They can form in the stratosphere and even in the mesosphere also. Just not as easily. Clouds have formed as high as 85 km. These clouds are generally formed by radiation instead of by convection like tropospheric clouds.
Wake wrote:
"The amount of thermal radiation emitted increases rapidly and the principal frequency of the radiation becomes higher with increasing temperatures".
Correct. Has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The Stefan–Boltzmann constant can be used to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody, which absorbs all of the radiant energy that hits it, and will emit all the radiant energy. Furthermore, the Stefan–Boltzmann constant allows for temperature (K) to be converted to units for intensity (W m−2), which is power per unit area.
Which is a scalar value. No 'curve' exists for a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Wait a minute - "principle frequency"? Does that mean that the higher and lower frequencies do not exist or that they FALL OFF in a standard curve? What do you suppose that curve would be?
Not the definition of a bell curve. The definition of the curve and how the curve is formed is actually a mathematical one. It is the result of a paired or multiply coupled randR. In statistics, it is a paired randR. There, it is simply known as the 'X' curve.
Wake wrote:
Do you see anywhere in that definition that states anything about this radiation being in any small units of your choosing?
You seem to be confusing Planck's law, Wien's displacement law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Planck's law discusses the energy of individual photons as they are related to temperature.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law discusses the total energy of all combined frequencies related to temperature. It comes out of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies and adjusted for emissivity. It refers to many photons.
The Wien displacement law is probably what you want if you want to chase curves and temperatures. You can determine the curve (over the domain of the spectral lines of the substance) given a temperature.
You can't go back so easily, since you are now talking about probability math.
The Wien displacement law is useful for approximating purely radiative bodies like the Sun. It is a probability, however, based on the same curve.
It does not work for reflective bodies such as planets.
I would like to remind you of when I first appeared on these groups the thing that you and I agreed with:
"To my way of thinking, science is the end product and not the initial guess. CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" was a hypothesis from the 19th century. It was an incorrect hypothesis and was NEVER proven. But Dr. Mann somehow managed to move from hypothesis past theory to fact without a single successful prediction on his side. The rest of the climate scientists apparently didn't need a successful model, all they required was a statement totally unproven and which hasn't been proven since.
Science is the means of envisioning a hypothesis, testing it enough to successfully model an outcome, which moves it to a theory and finally when you can't break the theory it becomes fact. Even the theory of relativity is still a theory, because we cannot test it in it's entirety.
Most of science is feeling about like a blind man but this is denied by the True Believers who think that one statement from one man can guarantee results when it never has and never will."
So perhaps looking for things we can agree upon is a better idea that finding things we cannot agree upon. All we're doing is chalking up useless points here and there that are not part of the importance of this group. |
| 14-05-2017 06:32 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14412) |
Wake wrote: You ought to get off of that high horse because the Stefan-Boltzmann equation includes the constant for emissivity.
That's exactly what Into the Night wrote. I presume you read his wording "It comes out of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies and adjusted for emissivity."
You have engaged in violent agreement.
Wake wrote:That means that it can be used FOR A SINGLE MOLECULE and not any such thing such as only a whole Earth and not part of the atmosphere.
You are mistaken.
The atomic unit in Stefan-Boltzmann is the "body." You cannot subdivide a body unless you are planning on devising your own science.
A body can be any identifiable material object, e.g. a golf ball, the sun, the earth, a molecule, whatever.
The earth is a "body" but that includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the ice, the clouds, the stray cats in the alley, ... all of it. You can't subdivide the body and separate out parts of the body, e.g. the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the stray cats in the alley, etc...
Into the Night has a firm grasp on this subject. Instead of feigning indignance, you should take advantage of the free insight and take some notes.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
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 |
| 14-05-2017 06:40 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14412) |
Wake wrote: Science is the means of envisioning a hypothesis, testing it enough to successfully model an outcome, which moves it to a theory and finally when you can't break the theory it becomes fact.
Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which nature-predicting hypotheses can be derived.
A test of such an hypothesis is called an experiment.
No matter how thoroughly any model is tested, it is never confirmed. No science model is a fact unless the people discussing it agree to it. Doubting and questioning are the cornerstones of science.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
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 |