Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Surface Detail wrote:

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
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!

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Nothing cryptic about domains, and they do apply.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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.

What's it radiating from? There is no surface!

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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!

Nope. Looks like it follows Planck's law quite well.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

No, because domains, you scientifically illiterate moron.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's pointless to ask that. You pretty much know what they'll say.

No, because domains, you scientifically illiterate moron.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

How can it? According to Planck's Law, radiance depends only on temperature and wavelength. For Planck's Law to apply, the gas in the flask would have radiate with the same intensity regardless of the amount of gas in the flask, which is clearly nonsensical.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Nothing cryptic about domains, and they do apply.

The domains aren't cryptic, your statements are.

How do they apply? The domain goes from the left to the right, no breaks or anything. Only one substance.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

You have no data. I have anecdotal. You need to back your statement up with either rigorous logic and the correct application of scientific laws... or you could go and collect data better. Your choice.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

What surface does it apply to?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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.

What's it radiating from? There is no surface!

It's radiating from the middle, and the outside, and everything in between. Next?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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!

Nope. Looks like it follows Planck's law quite well.

I... you... I am just stunned.

How does TEH MAGIK POER O' DOMAAAAAAAINS turn the Planck distribution into THAT?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

How can it? According to Planck's Law, radiance depends only on temperature and wavelength. For Planck's Law to apply, the gas in the flask would have radiate with the same intensity regardless of the amount of gas in the flask, which is clearly nonsensical.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

How can it? According to Planck's Law, radiance depends only on temperature and wavelength. For Planck's Law to apply, the gas in the flask would have radiate with the same intensity regardless of the amount of gas in the flask, which is clearly nonsensical.

Are you saying that a flask of CO2 would radiate the same regardless of the amount of gas in the flask?

If not, why is this a significant point to bring up?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Nothing cryptic about domains, and they do apply.

The domains aren't cryptic, your statements are.

How do they apply? The domain goes from the left to the right, no breaks or anything. Only one substance.

One substance, two functions.
This has already been explained to you.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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?

removed because too large

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.

You have no data. I have anecdotal. You need to back your statement up with either rigorous logic and the correct application of scientific laws... or you could go and collect data better. Your choice.

Actually, I no longer need data. I simply apply the theory that's already there.
But if you like anecdotal data, I happen to have two Subaru Foresters, one black and one white. They both have light gray interiors. The interior temperature between them is actually quite similar with the black one about 10 degrees warmer on an 80 degree day with full sun and no wind conditions, probably because of heat conducted via the roof of the vehicle into the interior. A slight breeze brings the temperatures of both cars to near the same. (Windows are closed)

I like Subaru cars, you see.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

What surface does it apply to?

Good question. The same question could be asked for CO2 radiation.

jwoodward48 wrote:As for your point about CO2 radiation, that is taken into account. By models. Yes. Models which exist. Models which mathematically model radiation and absorption and radiation and convection, etc. They exist.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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.

What's it radiating from? There is no surface!

It's radiating from the middle, and the outside, and everything in between. Next?

So...the gas is radiating from the effective 'surface' of every molecule in the gas. Is that right?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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!

Nope. Looks like it follows Planck's law quite well.

I... you... I am just stunned.

How does TEH MAGIK POER O' DOMAAAAAAAINS turn the Planck distribution into THAT?

You could go back and read IBdaMann's explanation again, or apply the Planck's curve as one domain intersecting with the spectral graph as the other domain.

Look at the heights of the spikes. They follow the Planck curve.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

How can it? According to Planck's Law, radiance depends only on temperature and wavelength. For Planck's Law to apply, the gas in the flask would have radiate with the same intensity regardless of the amount of gas in the flask, which is clearly nonsensical.

You said it yourself. Surface area. Think about that.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:As for your point about CO2 radiation, that is taken into account. By models. Yes. Models which exist. Models which mathematically model radiation and absorption and radiation and convection, etc. They exist.

Are they falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:As for your point about CO2 radiation, that is taken into account. By models. Yes. Models which exist. Models which mathematically model radiation and absorption and radiation and convection, etc. They exist.

Are they falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method?

Well, since we can measure radiation, I'd say sure, they're falsifiable. As for the "rigorous scientific method," since I didn't personally observe the scientists at work, who knows? It could all be a hoax.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

How can it? According to Planck's Law, radiance depends only on temperature and wavelength. For Planck's Law to apply, the gas in the flask would have radiate with the same intensity regardless of the amount of gas in the flask, which is clearly nonsensical.

Are you saying that a flask of CO2 would radiate the same regardless of the amount of gas in the flask?

If not, why is this a significant point to bring up?

No, he's saying that "radiation is independent of concentration" is what Planck would predict.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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?

removed because too large

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.

You have no data. I have anecdotal. You need to back your statement up with either rigorous logic and the correct application of scientific laws... or you could go and collect data better. Your choice.

Actually, I no longer need data. I simply apply the theory that's already there.
But if you like anecdotal data, I happen to have two Subaru Foresters, one black and one white. They both have light gray interiors. The interior temperature between them is actually quite similar with the black one about 10 degrees warmer on an 80 degree day with full sun and no wind conditions, probably because of heat conducted via the roof of the vehicle into the interior. A slight breeze brings the temperatures of both cars to near the same. (Windows are closed)

I like Subaru cars, you see.

Okay. Explain how "the theory" describes the outside heating up, but conduction... somehow not doing anything.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Nothing cryptic about domains, and they do apply.

The domains aren't cryptic, your statements are.

How do they apply? The domain goes from the left to the right, no breaks or anything. Only one substance.

One substance, two functions.
This has already been explained to you.

No, it really hasn't. Which two functions?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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.

What's it radiating from? There is no surface!

It's radiating from the middle, and the outside, and everything in between. Next?

So...the gas is radiating from the effective 'surface' of every molecule in the gas. Is that right?

Well, yes, but you can't apply Planck's to a single molecule. "Surface" is basically meaningless at this point, you can't draw the same conclusions you could with a normal surface.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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!

Nope. Looks like it follows Planck's law quite well.

I... you... I am just stunned.

How does TEH MAGIK POER O' DOMAAAAAAAINS turn the Planck distribution into THAT?

You could go back and read IBdaMann's explanation again, or apply the Planck's curve as one domain intersecting with the spectral graph as the other domain.

Look at the heights of the spikes. They follow the Planck curve.

Care to link to that explanation? I never saw anything beyond "DOMAINS, you moron!"

What other spectral graph would there be? There's Planck's, and there's... what else?

The heights of the spikes certainly do appear Planckian, but unless you're suggesting that each spike means a molecule at a particular temperature (which isn't a thing), that comparison isn't useful. Planck only predicts one curve for a body, and that curve has one peak. At one temperature, and a single substance, Planck can't predict multiple peaks.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Planck's law applies to the gas.

How can it? According to Planck's Law, radiance depends only on temperature and wavelength. For Planck's Law to apply, the gas in the flask would have radiate with the same intensity regardless of the amount of gas in the flask, which is clearly nonsensical.

Are you saying that a flask of CO2 would radiate the same regardless of the amount of gas in the flask?

If not, why is this a significant point to bring up?

No, he's saying that "radiation is independent of concentration" is what Planck would predict.

Why are you saying Planck would predict that?