Remember me
▼ Content

Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith



Page 2 of 7<1234>>>
06-10-2016 22:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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).


He never explained! I figured out what he meant. Could you explain, or give a link to a clear explanation?

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?


By emitting radiation. How else?

There is something called the "effective radiating surface", which is related to optical depth. I'm looking into that at the moment, it's quite intriguing. But other than that, there is not surface area for gases. (I hope you aren't about to deny that gases can 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?


Well, it's obviously decreasing. And the effect is that the Earth is heating up.

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.)


Shortwave is generally sunlight, and longwave is generally Earthlight.

CO2 is most definitely not transparent to longwave.



This is the radiation returning to Earth after being absorbed by GHG.



This is how much energy gets through the atmosphere.

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.


Then link it! Or just specify the sentence in the following paragraph that violates a law, etc.:

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.



"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!
06-10-2016 22:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


Yes! Now suppose that the emissivity is increased, but the absorptivity is not. Won't the temperature increase?
Edited on 06-10-2016 22:49
06-10-2016 23:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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?


It is already assumed by me the conditions of exposed cars parked side by side in the same sunlight, and the interior is the same color as the car. For you and me we will take this as fact. We will also accept as fact that the windows are rolled up so that airflow through the interiors of the cars is curtailed, reducing both conduction and convection to the ambient air.

Under these conditions, the black car will get hotter. It will reach higher temperatures because it is absorbing more energy than the white car.

At night, the opposite happens. The black car will continue emit energy it absorbed, just as the white car does. Only now there is no sunlight.

The black car loses more energy than the white car until both cars reach ambient temperatures of the surrounding environment.

The black car absorbs more, and the black car emits more. Both cars are the same temperature in the morning (actually, by mid-evening), when the sun comes up to start the next cycle.

The black car does not stay warmer. It warms quicker, AND it cools quicker. Only the dark surfaces take part in absorption and emission. The thermal energy resulting from this is absorbed deeper into the seats, body, and air of the vehicle. This takes time to warm, and it takes time to cool. It is why a thin coat of paint can change the constant used for emissivity.

In terms of radiation, both cars follow Plank's law. The hotter black car is emitting more energy than the white car.

Both cars follow the S-B law as well. Both cars are emitting (even during the day) as well as absorbing. The black one just does it better.

The 2nd law is followed as well. Neither car will warm until energy is supplied by the sun. Neither car will equal the temperature of the sun (thankfullly!). Heating is from hot to cold at the rate determined by the radiative difference between them (since heating is by radiation alone).

When the sun goes down, both cars lose their energy to the surrounding environment, via radiation, conduction, and convection (yes, it's still there, the windows aren't perfect!). Heat is moving away from the cars at the rate determined by the difference in temperature to the outside air, from hot to cold.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 23:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is definitely true. You're quite good at this.

However, if absorptivity and emissivity are different, the average temperature can change.
06-10-2016 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
I don't know LA that well so LAX sounds good.


LAX sucks. Avoid that airport if you can.

I prefer SNA. A much better airport to get around in.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.

.


Don't give him too hard a time IB, after all, they still use torches over there.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 23:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Can absorptivity be different from emissivity, anyway?
06-10-2016 23:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Can absorptivity be different from emissivity, anyway?

No.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 23:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Are you sure? Is there a law that says that?
07-10-2016 01:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Are you sure? Is there a law that says that?

Yes. Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation states that, for a particular wavelength, the absorptivity of a surface must always be equal to its emissivity. I forget why; it's something to do with impossible situations arising otherwise.

Remember, though, that emissivity (and hence absorptivity) is a function of wavelength. Black paint, for example, has a higher emissivity than white paint in the visible part of the spectrum, but there is usually little difference in the IR part. Hence black cars heat up more rapidly than white cars in sunlight, but both will cool at similar rates at night.
07-10-2016 02:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah. (I knew there was some law with a caviat. Thanks for explaining.)
07-10-2016 15:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote: He never explained!

Hold on. We had a conversation about domains, you insisted you know what they are, I described set operations, you seemed to understand that, ...

... so what are you claiming about domains that you don't understand and that I haven't explained?

Lest we forget, the whole idea behind your pretending to not understand domains was to EVADE providing a single example of a gas whose E of a given wavelength in its domain at its temperature t was measured to be something other than what Planck's says.

You never explained! You never provided even a single example of a gas that radiates differently from what Planck's specifies. You insisted that gases don't radiate according to Planck's (admittedly, you insisted this to win Surface Detail's approval) and you then tried to weasel by pretending to not understand what a "domain" is.

You continue to weasel by not admitting that you are not aware of any gas that doesn't radiate per Planck's, presumably so as to remain in Surface Detail's good graces.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 16:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
He linked the spectrum of greenhouse gas radiation, its obviously not radiating the same as a perfect black body would.
07-10-2016 17:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 17:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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.



.


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.
Edited on 07-10-2016 17:59
07-10-2016 18:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 18:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 18:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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?
07-10-2016 18:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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.
07-10-2016 19:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 19:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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.
07-10-2016 19:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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.


.


Oooo back to insults now. As you would say when your trying to be pompous I think you have tipped your king.
07-10-2016 19:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 19:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Not yet. The information I'm trying to find either doesn't exist or is rather obscure.

How is Planck violated by GHE or AGW?
07-10-2016 20:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
07-10-2016 20:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote: As I've already explained, this is a nonsensical request.

You haven't explained anything. You are incapable of explaining anything. You're a moron who is desperately attempting to role-play a "smart" person.

Planck's law is expressed as a mathematical equation. It is thus entirely falsifiable.

You have asserted that gases do not radiate according to that equation.

You have failed to provide a single example, but you have weaseled and EVADED. You are a moron.

There is nothing preventing you from taking any gas, measuring its temperature and measuring its radiated energy at a given wavelength.

It's not my problem that you can't verify whether such measurements adhere to Planck's. You should have thought of that before you insisted that they don't.

Asserting that asking you for an example of what you claim is a "nonsensical" request is just a weasel-wording for "I can't support my assertion."

ERGO we are back to where we were before you made your claim about gases not adhering to Planck's. Your claims that "Planck's law doesn't apply" are summarily dismissed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-10-2016 21:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
07-10-2016 21:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2016 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


Ohms law is used to find the impedance caused by a capacitor, stupid.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2016 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2016 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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!


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2016 21:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.)


"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!
07-10-2016 21:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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!


"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!
07-10-2016 21:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Because the H2 is not an opaque material, the amount of energy that your 1L flask would radiate would depend not only on the temperature and wavelength, but also on the density and pressure of the hydrogen. The more hydrogen you had in there, the more radiation you'd get. The absolute values also depend on the geometry of the apparatus; that's why line spectra never have absolute values on the y-axis. It is simply nonsensical to try to apply Planck's law to a gas. You can see that from the units of spectral radiance.

Edit: typo
Edited on 07-10-2016 21:59
07-10-2016 22:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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!

No, it means that it doesn't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law, which applies specifically to emission from the surface of a black body. By specifying emissivity, Planck's Law can also be used for opaque surfaces that aren't perfect emitters. It cannot apply to a gas.
07-10-2016 22:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, yes, but, Surface - oh! Line spectra! Thank you. Just the search term I needed.



Here it is! Multiple peaks, people. You can see them with your own eyes.

Anyway, if Planck's Law still somehow applied, you could expect there to be only one peak, as this is a single substance at a single temperature. Why would you add multiple functions - there's only one! And you can see that there are multiple peaks, so... Refuted!
Edited on 07-10-2016 22:08
07-10-2016 23:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, sorry, I should have specified - that's for hydrogen plasma. Also note that

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


Also note that there are differences between the graphs of different substances. Also note that the domain of the wavelengths for this plasma includes all wavelengths from ~350 nm to ~750 nm, so cryptic DOMAIN comments don't apply.
08-10-2016 00:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.)


By stating that you know set theory and then asking how domains combine, you have just denied your own argument.


The Parrot Killer
08-10-2016 00:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, I'm not asking how you take the union of two sets.

I'm asking which two domains are you combining? I can only think of one, because there's... only one radiating substance. One. Not two.
08-10-2016 00:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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!


The nice thing about science is that it discards anecdotal evidence.

Nothing specifies the color of the interior, which is important to the temperature of the interior.

Nothing specifies the texture of the interior, which is important to the temperature of the interior.

The color of the roof of the car can affect the interior, but not the hood or the trunk.

The air conditioning test only tests the air conditioner, not heat loss.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 7<1234>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Climate change: CO2 emissions fall in 18 countries with strong policies, study finds126-02-2019 18:15
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
Global Warming Argument Simplified7813-12-2018 00:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact