Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith > Page 5

Page 5 of 7

11-10-2016 03:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	jwoodward48 wrote: You have yet to demonstrate a calculation that could be used to falsify your claims. Would you care to take up IB's challenge? Since you completely fail to grasp domains and your math skills suck, you do not understand the senseless question you are asking. IBDaMann never made such a challenge (not on this thread anyway). 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
11-10-2016 04:28
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	"Of course you can't understand it! You haven't seen the light yet!" My challenge that I gave to IB. How would you go about calculating the energy observed (from 1 m away) from a 300K 2 atm H2-filled 1L perfectly clear, spherical flask?
11-10-2016 10:43
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up. What values do you get when you run it through Planck's? Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any. It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics. Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to. Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you.
11-10-2016 11:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	jwoodward48 wrote: "Of course you can't understand it! You haven't seen the light yet!" My challenge that I gave to IB. How would you go about calculating the energy observed (from 1 m away) from a 300K 2 atm H2-filled 1L perfectly clear, spherical flask? Apply Planck's law and the inverse square law. 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
11-10-2016 11:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up. What values do you get when you run it through Planck's? Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any. It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics. Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to. Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you. Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either. Planck's law applies to all gases. 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

11-10-2016 12:02
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up. What values do you get when you run it through Planck's? Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any. It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics. Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to. Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you. Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either. Planck's law applies to all gases. Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so.
11-10-2016 12:33
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	With domains, right? Into, how would I apply Planck's Law? Where do I plug the 2 atm in? Where do I take into account how H2 is sort-of-transparent, and thus light from within can sometimes escape?
11-10-2016 13:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote:]Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. Planck's applies. I know you're desperate for select physics to "not apply" in defense of your WACKY religion but you're a moron for allowing your crap religion to delude you. Surface Detail wrote:] It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you. Let me see, no physics apply that you don't understand, correct? The reason: there can't be any physics you don't understand! You were educated in the UK. Planck's applies. Did you ever figure out what a domain is? . 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
11-10-2016 13:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote:Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I'm still waiting for one example. Have you found out what a domain is? I'm still waiting for that to happen as well. Surface Detail wrote: If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so. Nice shifting of your burden of proof. Give me an example of a gas that does not radiate per Planck's. It's not my problem if you can read an equation or if you don't know what a domain is. Btw, you should have learned about domains as a child. Were you sleeping? Physics applies always, everywhere. Your "Climate" religion is for dumbasses. . 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
11-10-2016 13:50
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I'm still waiting for one example. Have you found out what a domain is? I'm still waiting for that to happen as well. Surface Detail wrote: If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so. Nice shifting of your burden of proof. Give me an example of a gas that does not radiate per Planck's. It's not my problem if you can read an equation or if you don't know what a domain is. Btw, you should have learned about domains as a child. Were you sleeping? Physics applies always, everywhere. Your "Climate" religion is for dumbasses. Once again, for the hard of thinking: Planck's Law gives emission per unit surface area. Gases do not have a surface area. Therefore Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. How can you not understand this?
11-10-2016 14:08
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	You can't argue that Planck applies to everything "because laws apply everywhere." The IGL is a law - and it doesn't apply to real-world gases.
11-10-2016 14:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	jwoodward48 wrote:You can't argue that Planck applies to everything "because laws apply everywhere." The IGL is a law - and it doesn't apply to real-world gases. Planck's applies. The ideal gas law applies. I don't have to argue that either applies any more than I need to argue that earth has an atmosphere. You won't be bringing the person who told you this crap here to this forum to be cross-examined, will you? You will apparently believe ANYTHING any warmizombie tells you I see. . 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
11-10-2016 15:18
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: jwoodward48 wrote:You can't argue that Planck applies to everything "because laws apply everywhere." The IGL is a law - and it doesn't apply to real-world gases. Planck's applies. The ideal gas law applies. I don't have to argue that either applies any more than I need to argue that earth has an atmosphere. You won't be bringing the person who told you this crap here to this forum to be cross-examined, will you? You will apparently believe ANYTHING any warmizombie tells you I see. Utter delusion. Physical laws apply in accordance with the assumptions made when formulating them. Planck's Law applies to black bodies, and is approximately true for real bodies; it does not apply to gases. The ideal gas law applies to ideal gases, and is approximately true for real gases; it does not apply to solids, for example.
11-10-2016 15:29
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school. It's called the "ideal" gas law for a reason - it applies to ideal gases. Ideal gases are those that have: 1. Infinitesimally small particles 2. No intermolecular forces (except during collision) Obviously, no real gas is ideal. Some can have small molecules, and minimal intermolecular forces. These are the gases that the IGL is used on, similar to how Newtonian mechanics is used here on the surface of the Earth. It's a decent approximation. But outside of there, the model breaks down. That's why it's not the accepted model anymore - its predictions were wrong. Models are useful because they predict. If they adequately predict the information that we already have, then they're probably accurate enough, but that's not useful. What is useful is the ability to predict what will happen, or has happened, in other situations. We've never done near-lightspeed experiments, but we're fairly sure about what would happen, thanks to relativity.
11-10-2016 15:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote: Utter delusion. Physical laws apply in accordance with the assumptions made when formulating them. This must be your UK education failing you again. Physical laws apply always everywhere. Your attempts to selectively render physics "not applicable" is transparent and utterly silly. The only ones who are going to buy your crap are other religious dupes. Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to black bodies, and is approximately true for real bodies; it does not apply to gases. All you know how to do is to type the words "Planck's does not apply to gases" like you are reciting a prayer. What you cannot do is provide a single example. Do you know any other Global Warming prayers? . 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

11-10-2016 16:04
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Utter delusion. Physical laws apply in accordance with the assumptions made when formulating them. This must be your UK education failing you again. Physical laws apply always everywhere. Your attempts to selectively render physics "not applicable" is transparent and utterly silly. The only ones who are going to buy your crap are other religious dupes. Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to black bodies, and is approximately true for real bodies; it does not apply to gases. All you know how to do is to type the words "Planck's does not apply to gases" like you are reciting a prayer. What you cannot do is provide a single example. Do you know any other Global Warming prayers? We've shown you the line spectra of neon and hydrogen. That fact that you are to thick too understand that these spectra are not consistent with Planck's Law isn't out fault.
11-10-2016 16:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school. It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again. Why is it no one will take me up on my wager that you won't be differentiating between "applicability" and "accuracy under certain conditions"? Moral of the Story: The physics you violate in defense of your religion still apply. jwoodward48 wrote: Obviously, no real gas is ideal. Some can have small molecules, and minimal intermolecular forces. Why don't you jump to the chase and list off the physics that really don't ever "apply" because there aren't any "ideal" anythings in reality? Just list them all right here. . These are the gases that the IGL is used on, similar to how Newtonian mechanics is used here on the surface of the Earth. It's a decent approximation. But outside of there, the model breaks down. That's why it's not the accepted model anymore - its predictions were wrong. Models are useful because they predict. If they adequately predict the information that we already have, then they're probably accurate enough, but that's not useful. What is useful is the ability to predict what will happen, or has happened, in other situations. We've never done near-lightspeed experiments, but we're fairly sure about what would happen, thanks to relativity.[/quote] 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
11-10-2016 18:40
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	IBdaMann wrote: jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school. It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like." Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong. Why is it no one will take me up on my wager that you won't be differentiating between "applicability" and "accuracy under certain conditions"? IB, we're discussing laws. Laws.. If the law isn't entirely accurate (or any inaccuracy can be explained by error, breezes, other forces that also need to be taken into account), then the law is either wrong, or it's a useful part of a larger set of laws. Take, for instance, the Newtonian law of gravity. The expected acceleration is only found within a vacuum, and near a gravity well or near the speed of light, it is inaccurate. Newtonian gravity is a useful approximation at the Earth's surface, an even better approximation if you include aerodynamics, but it's not a universal law. It doesn't apply to everything. It only works in a narrow set of circumstances. Similarly, the IGL only works if the gas is made up of infinitely-small molecules that exert no forces on each other, save through collision. That is, an ideal gas. No gases are ideal - some are nearly ideal, and some are nowhere near ideal. The IGL is basically a rule of thumb, and the direction that it predicts (compression => heating up) is (almost?) always true. The number that it outputs (1 atm -> 2 atm => 31K -> 35K, or something) is not always right, and is in fact always slightly wrong. If I tried to argue that something could not happen because of the IGL, that might still be valid. If Bob is arguing that his perpetual motion machine works by making heat from both compression and decompression of gas, the IGL would work here, as AFAIK we don't know of any substances that heat when decompressed. But a better argument would be the 1st or 2nd LoT. If I have experimental results that show that a particular gas doesn't follow the IGL, and I have many results, and this is repeatable and explainable by my theory, then the IGL is thrown out as a real scientific law, but not as a usable approximation. Nobody would argue that Einstein was wrong "because Newtonian gravity disagreed". Newtonian gravity is a decent law, but it doesn't work everywhere - when in doubt, relativity. Moral of the Story: The physics you violate in defense of your religion still apply. Sure. The null set applies. jwoodward48 wrote: Obviously, no real gas is ideal. Some can have small molecules, and minimal intermolecular forces. Why don't you jump to the chase and list off the physics that really don't ever "apply" because there aren't any "ideal" anythings in reality? Just list them all right here. IB, did you just read one word and jump to the postbutton? Stop evading. Does the IGL apply to all real-world gases? "Heads on a science Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist IBdaMann wrote: No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that. I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 18:42
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	At least the ideal gas law approximately describes the behaviour of real gases, provided certain conditions are met. The radiation emission from gases isn't even remotely described by Planck's Law. As any textbook on the topic will tell you, Planck's Law applies specifically to radiating bodies. Gases are not bodies. Edited on 11-10-2016 18:49
11-10-2016 19:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote: The radiation emission from gases isn't even remotely described by Planck's Law. ... still reciting the prayer, with nary an example to spare. "greenhouse effect" is still WACKY religious dogma unsupported by 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
11-10-2016 19:38
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: The radiation emission from gases isn't even remotely described by Planck's Law. ... still reciting the prayer, with nary an example to spare. "greenhouse effect" is still WACKY religious dogma unsupported by science. Planck's Law gives spectral radiance. Look up the definition of spectral radiance.
11-10-2016 20:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote:Planck's Law gives spectral radiance. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. I didn't see any example in there, moron. Shall I point out that you still have not admitted that you know of not a single example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's. This runs counter to your insistence that no gas radiates in accordance with Planck's. You appear to be a babbling idiot. Just one example is all that is needed to support your claim and thus far it's bupkis from you. Let me know when something changes. . 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
11-10-2016 20:58
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Planck's Law gives spectral radiance. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. I didn't see any example in there, moron. Shall I point out that you still have not admitted that you know of not a single example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's. This runs counter to your insistence that no gas radiates in accordance with Planck's. You appear to be a babbling idiot. Just one example is all that is needed to support your claim and thus far it's bupkis from you. Let me know when something changes. Then let me tell you the definition of spectral radiance: it is the radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit solid angle per unit projected area per unit frequency or wavelength. Gas has no surface. It therefore cannot have a spectral radiance. Please try to understand this. Your demand makes no sense.
11-10-2016 21:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote:Gas has no surface. It therefore cannot have a spectral radiance. Please try to understand this. Your demand makes no sense. Do gases radiate? . 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
11-10-2016 21:08
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Gas has no surface. It therefore cannot have a spectral radiance. Please try to understand this. Your demand makes no sense. Do gases radiate? Yes, at discrete wavelengths that depend on the energy levels available within each atom or molecule. I already showed how you can calculate the emission wavelengths for hydrogen from basic quantum mechanical principles.
11-10-2016 21:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Do gases radiate? Yes, at discrete wavelengths that ...blah, blah, blah... Great, yes, gases radiate. You insist that gases don't radiate per Planck's, correct? . 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
11-10-2016 21:45
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Do gases radiate? Yes, at discrete wavelengths that ...blah, blah, blah... Great, yes, gases radiate. You insist that gases don't radiate per Planck's, correct? Experimental evidence in the form of emission spectra says they don't.
11-10-2016 21:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote:Experimental evidence in the form of emission spectra says they don't. I wasn't asking experimental evidence. I was asking you about you. You insist that gases radiate but that gases don't radiate per Planck's, yes? . 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
11-10-2016 22:40
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Experimental evidence in the form of emission spectra says they don't. I wasn't asking experimental evidence. I was asking you about you. You insist that gases radiate but that gases don't radiate per Planck's, yes? Yes. As I've already explained, gas molecules have discrete energy levels and radiate at wavelengths corresponding to the differences between these energy levels. That's why they give line spectra. Having said that, stars, which are made up of gas that is very hot, dense and highly ionized so as to be opaque to radiation (and thus can be regarded as having an optical surface), do have an emission spectrum that is fairly close to black body radiation due to the strong interaction between the constituent atoms. However, stellar spectra are characterised by absorption lines from the cooler, outer gas layers, and so also deviate significantly from the perfect black body spectrum given by Planck's Law.
11-10-2016 23:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up. What values do you get when you run it through Planck's? Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any. It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics. Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to. Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you. Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either. Planck's law applies to all gases. Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so. Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard? 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

11-10-2016 23:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote: Yes. As I've already explained, gas molecules have discrete energy levels and radiate at wavelengths corresponding to the differences between these energy levels. That's why they give line spectra. Yes, that's why they have the wavelength domains that they have. So we have three TRUE statements: * gases radiate * you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's * yet you know of no example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's What name shall we give this set of statements? The Surface Detail Contradiction sounds good. Surface Detail wrote: However, stellar spectra are characterised by absorption lines from the cooler, outer gas layers, and so also deviate significantly from the perfect black body spectrum given by Planck's Law. Might you have an example there? i.e. a temperature and wavelength that render a rogue E? . 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
11-10-2016 23:14
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up. What values do you get when you run it through Planck's? Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any. It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics. Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to. Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you. Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either. Planck's law applies to all gases. Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so. Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard? Please demonstrate.
11-10-2016 23:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Utter delusion. Physical laws apply in accordance with the assumptions made when formulating them. This must be your UK education failing you again. Physical laws apply always everywhere. Your attempts to selectively render physics "not applicable" is transparent and utterly silly. The only ones who are going to buy your crap are other religious dupes. Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to black bodies, and is approximately true for real bodies; it does not apply to gases. All you know how to do is to type the words "Planck's does not apply to gases" like you are reciting a prayer. What you cannot do is provide a single example. Do you know any other Global Warming prayers? We've shown you the line spectra of neon and hydrogen. That fact that you are to thick too understand that these spectra are not consistent with Planck's Law isn't out fault. They ARE consistent with Planck's law. Your sucky math skills are the problem. 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
11-10-2016 23:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	deleted dupe. 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 11-10-2016 23:28
11-10-2016 23:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	jwoodward48 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school. It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like." Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong. Go ask Alice. jwoodward48 wrote: Why is it no one will take me up on my wager that you won't be differentiating between "applicability" and "accuracy under certain conditions"? IB, we're discussing laws. Laws.. If the law isn't entirely accurate (or any inaccuracy can be explained by error, breezes, other forces that also need to be taken into account), then the law is either wrong, or it's a useful part of a larger set of laws. Take, for instance, the Newtonian law of gravity. The expected acceleration is only found within a vacuum, and near a gravity well or near the speed of light, it is inaccurate. Newton's law of gravity doesn't describe acceleration. Neither does it use it. 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
11-10-2016 23:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: Gases are not bodies. Really??? Gases have weight. They have inertia. They have temperature. They emit radiation. 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
11-10-2016 23:39
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Yes. As I've already explained, gas molecules have discrete energy levels and radiate at wavelengths corresponding to the differences between these energy levels. That's why they give line spectra. Yes, that's why they have the wavelength domains that they have. So we have three TRUE statements: * gases radiate * you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's * yet you know of no example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's What name shall we give this set of statements? The Surface Detail Contradiction sounds good. No gases radiate according to Planck's Law. Planck's Law applies to radiation emitted from black bodies, not gases. We've already given you the examples of hydrogen and neon. They emit discrete wavelengths, not black body spectra.
11-10-2016 23:43
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Gases are not bodies. Really??? Gases have weight. They have inertia. They have temperature. They emit radiation. Indeed, but they are not bodies. They do not retain their shape and they do not have a surface.
12-10-2016 00:18
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school. It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like." Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong. Go ask Alice. Who's that? jwoodward48 wrote: Why is it no one will take me up on my wager that you won't be differentiating between "applicability" and "accuracy under certain conditions"? IB, we're discussing laws. Laws.. If the law isn't entirely accurate (or any inaccuracy can be explained by error, breezes, other forces that also need to be taken into account), then the law is either wrong, or it's a useful part of a larger set of laws. Take, for instance, the Newtonian law of gravity. The expected acceleration is only found within a vacuum, and near a gravity well or near the speed of light, it is inaccurate. Newton's law of gravity doesn't describe acceleration. Neither does it use it. Sorry, Newtonian gravity + Newtonian mechanics. F=ma, etc. "Heads on a science Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist IBdaMann wrote: No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that. I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 00:53
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up. What values do you get when you run it through Planck's? Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any. It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics. Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to. Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you. Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either. Planck's law applies to all gases. Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so. Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard? jwoodward48 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance? Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes? After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no? . Let's take Hydrogen. I don't know what temperature this was at, though. But since this is Planck's Law, one of the peaks is probably the Wien peak, right? The 656.28 nm is the largest, that might be it. I go and I plug it into Wien's Law and get a temperature of 4418.8K. Okay. That's pretty hot, but not impossible to reach in a lab. That's feasible. Now, I'm going to plug 656.28 nm into Planck's Law for the superhot gas. (It's probably not a plasma, it's not hot enough.) Since the emissivity is very near to 0 at this T and P (10 tm and 8400K H2, for reference, have 0.014 emissivity, and as you heat/compress H2 it gets less emissive.) We get about 6.9010^6 or 6900000 intensity. The scale doesn't matter, they didn't give anything but the relative values anyway, so let's divide by 10^6 to have nicer numbers, and call the unit Intensities. Very original, I know. 6.90 Intensities for 656.28 nm. Now let's plug in 500 nm. We get about 5.5810^6 or 5.58 Intensities. Since we don't even know the scale of the graph (is the bottom 0, or what?), this is okayish? It seems kind of wrong that the two numbers are so close. The peak is supposed to be huge! See the graph? Now let's plug in 486.13 nm. There's a peak here. The number we get should be more than 500 nm, right? Nope. 5.30 Intensities. How do you explain that, IB and Into? Is it more complex than you said, or are you wrong? "Heads on a science Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist IBdaMann wrote: No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that. I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!

Page 5 of 7

Join the debate Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Church of the Mask -- "Magick Mask Argument"	94	02-04-2021 05:36
Argument against AGW science	3	14-08-2019 20:51
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data	6	27-05-2019 21:00
Climate change: CO2 emissions fall in 18 countries with strong policies, study finds	1	26-02-2019 18:15
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'	1	24-02-2019 18:59