Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
None of it violates Planck's law. You seem to not yet have learned about domains, even though it was explained to you.

Wait, what? You never explained a thing. I figured out some things from your cryptic clues.

How will DOMAINS save you this time?

Domains don't 'save' anyone. Your misunderstanding of them is your problem. It still is, even after IBdaMann explained them to you (which was the same thing I was hinting at).

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That does not alter the emissivity of anything. But you bring up an interesting problem.

Since CO2 is a gas, that means it must have a surface area to emit from. What is the surface area of a gas?

Why wouldn't it change the emissivity? It's absorbing some of the outgoing light.

The effective radiating surface of the EARTH is at a point above the troposphere. I don't get the question. Gases don't have surface areas, anyway.

Okay, then how does a gas radiate?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Yes. If you paint something, you alter the emissivity and you use the new constant.

Yes! So, if we change the atmosphere, we alter the emissivity and we use the new constant.

Go right ahead. Which way is emissivity changing, due to 100ppm difference of carbon dioxide, and what is the effect?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
True, but absorption and emission happen at the same wavelength (unless you reduce the energy of the atom before it emits).

1. I'm talking about how CO2 is transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave.
2. True, but in practice, intermolecular collisions quickly redistribute the energy.

It is transparent to longwave also. Are you referring to certain frequencies in the infrared spectrum?

Assuming visible light (is what I guess you mean by 'shortwave') is absorbed, then that is the emission of whatever absorbed it. Assuming infrared (for what I assume you are calling 'longwave'), is absorbed, that that is the emission of whatever absorbed it.

(The term 'longwave' refers to frequencies in the range of 30Khz to 300Khz. The term 'shortwave' refers to frequencies in the range of 3Mhz to 30Mhz.)

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I am not ignoring the surrounding material. You are by concentrating solely on radiation as a method of heating. If you're going to do that, the least you can do is learn quantum mechanics and Planck's law (which helped create it!).

No, you should learn it. The phenomenon you describe is nonexistent. (Surface could probably explain better.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Two problems with this. First, the human body regulates its own temperature. Second, neither would cause me to warm (or anything else to warm).

1. It's an analogy.
2. Moving from cold to cool will cause you to warm.

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

I already have been. You've denied all the science given you so you can join the Church of Global Warming.

Evasion.

Not wanting to repeat myself is not an evasion.

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
An unoxidized aluminum surface has an emissivity of 0.1 - 0.2 for a wavelength of 1 μm, whereas an oxidized aluminum surface has an emissivity of 0.4 for a wavelength of 1 μm.

So what happens to the emissivity of aluminum for a wavelength of 1 μm as it oxidizes?

Clue: The opposite thing happens to the effective emissivity of a planet at 15 μm as you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in its atmosphere.

Emissivity Values for Metals

Edit: In reply to IBdaMann's bizarre computer programming "analogy".

It simply means the higher emissivity will absorb more readily AND emit more readily.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: Ah I think I get the white car black car argument, you my not like it but lets have it anyway. Why is a white car and a black car in the sun different temperatures?

POST 2222

Are you talking about the temperature of the hood surface or the temperature inside the car (assuming the windows are rolled up)?


.

I can't see why its important but in a LA car-park with no shade, on a hot summers day, not a cloud in the sky 2 o'clock in the afternoon with the engine off nobody has touched the cars since the previous day parked up windows rolled up and we are concerned with the temperature of the passenger compartment, same model of car as well.

Any further clarification needed?

spot wrote:
I don't know LA that well so LAX sounds good.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: I am from England where we speak English.

Sometimes I have to wonder. If you mean that you have some tourists who happen to speak English then that would make more sense.

spot wrote: Why just that part of the car anyway?

Gotcha! You don't speak English over there. I never wrote that only the black hood would be hotter than the white hood. Good try though.

While we're on the subject, what really is your first language?

spot wrote: I'm not negotiating with you I'm telling you. Black cars are noticeably hotter then white cars.

Right, you still make stupid statements surrounding erroneous generalizations.

The black external paint will be hotter than the white external paint.

The equivalent interiors will remain at equivalent temperatures.

It's a hood, not a bonnet. It's a trunk, not a boot. Hey, I'm here for you if you ever need to ask someone about correct English.

.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Can absorptivity be different from emissivity, anyway?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Are you sure? Is there a law that says that?

jwoodward48 wrote: He never explained!

spot wrote: He linked the spectrum of greenhouse gas radiation, its obviously not radiating the same as a perfect black body would.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: He linked the spectrum of greenhouse gas radiation, its obviously not radiating the same as a perfect black body would.

...so for which temperature and wavelength in particular is it radiating in violation of Planck's?

You have it right there apparently. You apparently have that information right in front of you, so lay it on me.

Show me the E( wavelength, temperature) that does not equal what Planck's says it should.



.

spot wrote: It's not violating anything, the description of "Planck's" I read specifically mentioned black bodies, you said yourself air is not a black-body.

Surface Detail wrote: Hence black cars heat up more rapidly than white cars in sunlight, but both will cool at similar rates at night.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: It's not violating anything, the description of "Planck's" I read specifically mentioned black bodies, you said yourself air is not a black-body.

Planck's law is expressed as a formula. You plug in values and you get a resulting value for E.

Several people assert that gases don't radiate per that formula. I'm still waiting for one example.


.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: It's not violating anything, the description of "Planck's" I read specifically mentioned black bodies, you said yourself air is not a black-body.

Planck's law is expressed as a formula. You plug in values and you get a resulting value for E.

Several people assert that gases don't radiate per that formula. I'm still waiting for one example.


.

They don't just assert it they have posted examples, for those of us who know what black-body radiation is your objections are confusing and have a Alice in wonderland quality to them, its like saying nobody knows what a penguin is and every-time someone shows you a picture or tries describe one you assert that "ITS A LONG NECKED MAMAMAL THAT COMES FROM AFRICA."

You said yourself air is not a black body, air is made of gasses so there is your example.

Can you find an example of a gas that does behave as a black-body?

Ohms law is expressed as a formula but won't help much if your trying to find the value of a capacitor.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Hence black cars heat up more rapidly than white cars in sunlight, but both will cool at similar rates at night.

Do you mean the temperature of the interior of the car is affected substantially by the color of the paint on the hood and the trunk?


.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: It's not violating anything, the description of "Planck's" I read specifically mentioned black bodies, you said yourself air is not a black-body.

Planck's law is expressed as a formula. You plug in values and you get a resulting value for E.

Several people assert that gases don't radiate per that formula. I'm still waiting for one example.


.

They don't just assert it they have posted examples, for those of us who know what black-body radiation is your objections are confusing and have a Alice in wonderland quality to them, its like saying nobody knows what a penguin is and every-time someone shows you a picture or tries describe one you assert that "ITS A LONG NECKED MAMAMAL THAT COMES FROM AFRICA."

You said yourself air is not a black body, air is made of gasses so there is your example.

Can you find an example of a gas that does behave as a black-body?

Ohms law is expressed as a formula but won't help much if your trying to find the value of a capacitor.

You are brain-dead. Probably a result of your British education. It is clearly pointless to engage you in a discussion.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

I was just going to ask you the same question.

Have you had any luck finding a gas that doesn't radiate per Planck's, i.e it's measured E for its temperature and for a wavelength in its domain differs from what Planck's specifies?

Surface Detail wrote: As I've already explained, this is a nonsensical request.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: It's not violating anything, the description of "Planck's" I read specifically mentioned black bodies, you said yourself air is not a black-body.

Planck's law is expressed as a formula. You plug in values and you get a resulting value for E.

Several people assert that gases don't radiate per that formula. I'm still waiting for one example.


.

They don't just assert it they have posted examples, for those of us who know what black-body radiation is your objections are confusing and have a Alice in wonderland quality to them, its like saying nobody knows what a penguin is and every-time someone shows you a picture or tries describe one you assert that "ITS A LONG NECKED MAMAMAL THAT COMES FROM AFRICA."

You said yourself air is not a black body, air is made of gasses so there is your example.

Can you find an example of a gas that does behave as a black-body?

Ohms law is expressed as a formula but won't help much if your trying to find the value of a capacitor.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Hence black cars heat up more rapidly than white cars in sunlight, but both will cool at similar rates at night.

Do you mean the temperature of the interior of the car is affected substantially by the color of the paint on the hood and the trunk?


.

Not really controversial I think your on your own here, even ITN isn't disputing it.


Of course now he will argue in some way he is.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

I was just going to ask you the same question.

Have you had any luck finding a gas that doesn't radiate per Planck's, i.e it's measured E for its temperature and for a wavelength in its domain differs from what Planck's specifies?

As I've already explained, this is a nonsensical request.

Planck's law gives the spectral radiance of a surface, that is, the power output per unit of surface area per solid angle for a particular wavelength. Gas doesn't have a surface, so it doesn't have a spectral radiance. You might as well demand evidence of a solid that doesn't satisfy the ideal gas law or liquid that doesn't obey Hooke's law.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

I guess you never learned set theory in your travels either.

Domains and the combination of domains has been explained to you. You are still trying to argue as if you never heard it.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Hence black cars heat up more rapidly than white cars in sunlight, but both will cool at similar rates at night.

Do you mean the temperature of the interior of the car is affected substantially by the color of the paint on the hood and the trunk?


.

Not really controversial I think your on your own here, even ITN isn't disputing it.


Of course now he will argue in some way he is.

No, IBDaMann has got it right. The interior is affected by the color of the interior, not the hood or trunk color.

For many drivers, choosing a car color is a matter of taste, but for some car shoppers, it can be all about climate. After all, it's generally accepted that black cars are hotter in the sun and white cars keep cooler in the summer, but is it really true? Our latest video puts that theory to the test.

We took two nearly identical vehicles, one white and one black, and let them bake in the hot Georgia summer sun. When we measured the interior temperature after a few hours, we discovered this isn't just an old wives' tale. The black car's cabin measured a scorching 130 degrees Fahrenheit, while the white car's interior registered only 113 degrees.

We also decided to try answering a different question: Which one cools down faster once the air conditioning is cranked? Once again, we broke out the thermometer and discovered that the interior of the white car cooled to 84 degrees after 10 minutes, while the black car was still at 91 degrees.

Based on our test, it's safe to assume the color of your car can indeed have an impact on your comfort in the summer heat, with black cars heating up quicker -- and cooling down slower -- than white ones.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Surface, do you know where I could find an emission graph for a single substance? Similar to a Planck distribution graph, but with watts measured (or similar) instead of spectral radiance. Then we could see if the distribution follows Planck or not.

IB, how about you demonstrate some of that genius scientisticalness and calculate what a 1L flask of H2 should radiate? I'm observing from 1 m away, and the flask is perfectly clear and spherical.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

I was just going to ask you the same question.

Have you had any luck finding a gas that doesn't radiate per Planck's, i.e it's measured E for its temperature and for a wavelength in its domain differs from what Planck's specifies?

As I've already explained, this is a nonsensical request.

Planck's law gives the spectral radiance of a surface, that is, the power output per unit of surface area per solid angle for a particular wavelength. Gas doesn't have a surface, so it doesn't have a spectral radiance. You might as well demand evidence of a solid that doesn't satisfy the ideal gas law or liquid that doesn't obey Hooke's law.

Then that means CO2 doesn't radiate!

...positions of lines reveal molecular properties while line strengths and shapes reveal composition, temperature, and pressure.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, that's what he means.

OTTO (on the topic of) DOMAINS: if we're allowed to scale any point by emissivity, then any distribution can be turned into any other distribution! Planck is special because it's the maximum that anything can radiate - if an object has an emissivity of 1 for all wavelengths, it'll emit the Planck distribution.

What point are you trying to make?

I guess you never learned set theory in your travels either.

Domains and the combination of domains has been explained to you. You are still trying to argue as if you never heard it.

I have learned set theory. If idiots only tell lies to people who don't tell lies to themselves, does the village idiot tell himself lies? (That's the paradox that was the "last straw" for naive set theory, by the way. Russell's paradox, IIRC?)

How does THE MAGIC POWER OF DOMAINS make a multi-peak graph when you have only one substance? You can't "combine functions" when you only have one of them. (Well, you could, but "combining" means adding here if I understand correctly, and adding f(x) to itself... still won't make peaks out of thin air. So that's moot.)

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Hence black cars heat up more rapidly than white cars in sunlight, but both will cool at similar rates at night.

Do you mean the temperature of the interior of the car is affected substantially by the color of the paint on the hood and the trunk?


.

Not really controversial I think your on your own here, even ITN isn't disputing it.


Of course now he will argue in some way he is.

No, IBDaMann has got it right. The interior is affected by the color of the interior, not the hood or trunk color.

Oh, by the four hells. You're honestly claiming that car colour doesn't affect heat? How about some anecdotal evidence?

For many drivers, choosing a car color is a matter of taste, but for some car shoppers, it can be all about climate. After all, it's generally accepted that black cars are hotter in the sun and white cars keep cooler in the summer, but is it really true? Our latest video puts that theory to the test.

We took two nearly identical vehicles, one white and one black, and let them bake in the hot Georgia summer sun. When we measured the interior temperature after a few hours, we discovered this isn't just an old wives' tale. The black car's cabin measured a scorching 130 degrees Fahrenheit, while the white car's interior registered only 113 degrees.

We also decided to try answering a different question: Which one cools down faster once the air conditioning is cranked? Once again, we broke out the thermometer and discovered that the interior of the white car cooled to 84 degrees after 10 minutes, while the black car was still at 91 degrees.

Based on our test, it's safe to assume the color of your car can indeed have an impact on your comfort in the summer heat, with black cars heating up quicker -- and cooling down slower -- than white ones.

It's not scientific, but it's data. Data that lines up with everybody else's observations. You're taking on the establishment - show us your data!