Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 6 of 17<<<45678>>>
05-08-2019 01:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Air is a mixture of gases and vapors. Many of these don't mix really well. ...
Wet air does not mix well with dry air. Warm air does not mix well with cold air...CO2...heavier a molecule than most any other in the atmosphere. It tends to stay fairly localized to it's source. This is true of many gases, including ozone, methane, etc....
Ozone forms in one part of the atmosphere and is primarily destroyed in another. It is not uniform in the atmosphere.

No, the atmosphere is not a uniform hunk of gases and vapors by any means.


So more like a chunky stew than a uniform soup.

Into the Night wrote:
. You cannot make a relative comparison without making at least two absolute measurements.

I meant:
Taking 4 readings at 1 inch and 30ft down and getting Fahrenheit:
100 / 58
-10 / 55
60. / 57
80. / 55

I can make the reasonable judgement that the temp at 30ft doesn't correlate with the temp at 1"

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.

But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it?

Not really. The overall cloud cover over the whole Earth doesn't change much. ....
No. You see, clouds are only really reflective in the visible light bands. They are quite 'dark' in other frequency bands, including infrared.


Right I forgot about clouds and infrared.

So it seems it's locally that clouds really vary and it's pretty averaged out globally albedo wise.


NASA Albedo

I'm assuming that to take a "snap shot" of the albedo a satellite would need to be able to do so for the full spectrum from ultra violet down to infra red.
Edited on 05-08-2019 01:26
05-08-2019 01:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Air is a mixture of gases and vapors. Many of these don't mix really well. ...
Wet air does not mix well with dry air. Warm air does not mix well with cold air...CO2...heavier a molecule than most any other in the atmosphere. It tends to stay fairly localized to it's source. This is true of many gases, including ozone, methane, etc....
Ozone forms in one part of the atmosphere and is primarily destroyed in another. It is not uniform in the atmosphere.

No, the atmosphere is not a uniform hunk of gases and vapors by any means.


So more like a chunky stew than a uniform soup.

Into the Night wrote:
. You cannot make a relative comparison without making at least two absolute measurements.

I meant:
Taking 4 readings at 1 inch and 30ft down and getting Fahrenheit:
100 / 58
-10 / 55
60. / 57
80. / 55

I can make the reasonable judgement that the temp at 30ft doesn't correlate with the temp at 1"

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.

But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it?

Not really. The overall cloud cover over the whole Earth doesn't change much. ....
No. You see, clouds are only really reflective in the visible light bands. They are quite 'dark' in other frequency bands, including infrared.


Right I forgot about clouds and infrared.

So it seems it's locally that clouds really vary and it's pretty averaged out globally albedo wise.


NASA Albedo



The thread is Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:


where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

P = eбA(T^4 - T^4c)
The T to the 4th power relates to the environment that heat is being radiated into. If the environment is warmer than the radiator, then wouldn't the radiator be absorbing heat?
Just asking for a friend. You likewise have referenced my ignorance. До Свидания
05-08-2019 02:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:
Just asking for a friend.


Why would you quote me when your post has nothing to do with mine. I didn't even understand what you wrote. Sorry. Maybe it'll get covered as we proceed.

I'm working an a description here that's as clear as possible, with the areas of real disagreement or controversy as focused as possible.
Edited on 05-08-2019 02:15
05-08-2019 02:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Just asking for a friend.


Why would you quote me when your post has nothing to do with mine. I didn't even understand what you wrote. Sorry. Maybe it'll get covered as we proceed.

I'm working an a description here that's as clear as possible, with the areas of real disagreement or controversy as focused as possible.



My post was about the topic of this thread. It referenced the specific physics concerning what this thread is about. It could influence the energy budget of the Earth.
It also FYI demonstrates that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant recognizes that the atmosphere that the black body is in influences what a black body does. ie., is it absorbing or radiating energy?
Electrical engineering is different than a planet when considering the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Just 2 different things.
Anyway, you are learning science from IBdaMann.
05-08-2019 02:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote: My post was about the topic of this thread.


I carefully looked over this long dead thread before reviving it. It suffered from a disorganized and scattered argument that never got anywhere. As I said elsewhere I see that ITN and IBdaMann don't want to let things go when they see errors. So we can just clear things up one by one, in an organized fashion. The breakdown with posters and ITN/IBdaMann on the board I think goes something like this:

DolphinHater: Look you have to recognize the dangers of fish like Dolphins
IBdaMann/ITN: Dolphins aren't fish at all
DolphinHater: Oh so you don't believe in Dolphins now! You are CRAZY
IBdaMann/ITN: Sea life misidentification fallacy
DolphinHater: Dolphins killed my whole family, here is a photo of them dying
IBdaMann/ITN: Sympathy fallacy and Sea Life misidentification fallacy

So far I think this has been very valuable. This isn't just about convincing anyone of anything it's about clearly organizing the information and ideas and clearing up things that are wrong.

Give it a chance.
Edited on 05-08-2019 03:09
05-08-2019 02:59
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote: My post was about the topic of this thread.


I carefully looked over this long dead thread before reviving it. It suffered from a disorganized and scattered argument that never got anywhere. As I said elsewhere I see that ITN and IBdaMann don't want to let things go when they see errors. So we can just clear things up one by one, in an organized fashion. The breakdown with posters and ITN/IBdaMann on the board I think goes something like this:

DolphinHater: Look you have to recognize the dangers of fish like Dolphins
IBdaMann/ITN: Dolphins aren't fish at all
DolphinHater: Oh so you don't believe in Dolphins now! You are CRAZY
IBdaMann/ITN: Sea life misidentification fallacy
DolphinHater: Dolphins killed my whole family, here is a photo of them dying
IBdaMann/ITN: Sympathy fallacy and Sea Life misidentification fallacy

So far I think this has been very valuable. This isn't just about convincing anyone of anything it's about clearly organizing the information and ideas and clearing up things that are wrong.

Give it a chance.



I understand the science. I have my own view which does not fit in with either yours or their perspective. I am the odd man out.
05-08-2019 03:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:I understand the science. I have my own view which does not fit in with either yours or their perspective. I am the odd man out.


I'm developing my own understanding as we go. Not sure what your position is but I hope that we can have a focused discussion when the time comes. We are not done yet in establishing the model and terms we're working with.
05-08-2019 04:57
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:I understand the science. I have my own view which does not fit in with either yours or their perspective. I am the odd man out.


I'm developing my own understanding as we go. Not sure what your position is but I hope that we can have a focused discussion when the time comes. We are not done yet in establishing the model and terms we're working with.


These guys work together because they don't understand that our climate does change. In reality they don't care. It doesn't matter to them. And if they had kids, look at the national debt. Mom and dad can have it good while their kids will be left with the hangover.
Thing is, I grew up on Star Trek, The Wright Bros., Boeing and the Space Needle. What are the odds of someone from Dayton, Ohio serving on board the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and then working for Boeing and learning even more about planes?
About my hometown. There were summers when me and my brothers were there everyday. We literally had a free run of the place. It educates people how America got to where it is today.
It's also where the most recent massacre happened. I'm kind of bummed out about it. At one point Dayton received more patents per capita than any other city in the US.
https://www.daytonhistory.org
Edited on 05-08-2019 05:31
05-08-2019 06:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:
These guys work together because they don't understand that our climate does change.


Everyone has what they'd prefer to believe or what they're pressured to believe, our "bias".

I think we all believe in the human ability to seek truth.

Even IF someone will do everything they can to twist things to get the desired answer (true on both sides of every big diametric controversy) you can actually use that to better test the conclusions on both sides.

Just as they do in a courtroom. It can expose weak arguments and test strong ones.

At the very least I want a world that's less ignorant of the basics.
05-08-2019 07:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:


At the very least I want a world that's less ignorant of the basics.



Not going to happen. You've seen what Harvey has posted to me. It's typical of what I put up with. You even told me to leave you alone because I tried telling you that damann doesn't know that much.
I'll give you the very basic Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Electricity causes an element in your oven or on your stove to heat up. It radiates heat. And if you have natural gas, same thing.
As a result you fix yourself something to eat and it's hot.
Is your food as hot as the source of heat? It's not.
This is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applied to engineering. It helps to demonstrate how heat can move from one medium to another. And the environment a heat source is in will influence the flow of heat. An air conditioner uses the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It's the inverse function. It's what a heat pump is based on. The constant was actually developed for engineering. It's what helped drive innovation at the turn of the 20th century. A lot of science was developed for commercial applications. Some in here say that technological innovation had nothing to do with it.
05-08-2019 07:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:
I'll give you the very basic Stefan-Boltzmann constant.


Thanks James. And I'm not trying to dismiss what you have to say but in this particular thread I'm still wanting to participate in a methodical approach.

There is an order to getting the terminology and the model we're talking about clear.

This is where we are at present:
My summary of the question at hand:
CLARIFYING THE CONSISTENCY OF EARTH's REFLECTIVITY/ALBEDO
Below is pasted from earlier:

IBdaMann wrote:remember that the earth includes its atmosphere and hydrosphere.


My conception is that the atmosphere is a single ocean of gas. It's able to freely convect and flow and the upper limit is determined by the earths gravity having a tug of war with the hottest bits of gas stretching out into space. It may be the most "unified" and intermixed part of the whole Earth system. Far more than the oceans or the rock and earth.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: As discussed a bit more below the depth to which conduction of thermal energy penetrates could be revealed by taking temperature measurements at different times and comparing the changes relative to one another.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.


I'm saying that the value of measurement can be comparative. I may be pretty clueless about what the temperature of the surface but could take enough measurements to be confident that 30 feet down the temperature is consistent. Interesting HVAC idea:
"The temperature of the Earth down 20 or 30 feet is a relatively constant number year-round, somewhere between 50 and 60 degrees"

IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.


But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it? If you have extra cloud cover that's more white and that's more solar radiation to bounce directly out into space without converting to thermal energy. No?

I mean it would average out as random things like that do I guess. But moment to moment it would mess up a thermometer reading.

Are you saying that it averages out every day?



IBdaMann wrote:
Science and math are my weaknesses, I'll always discuss them. Logic as well. ... and food.


Way more interesting to get to the real discussion and not finish in semantics and misstatements. Granted that it's legitimate to take issue with mistakes.

IBdaMann wrote:
I don't mean to quibble with you but...We are not establishing anything as TRUE.


I got you and it's just a language thing. My philosophical/scientific/theological grounding is in Descartes and we can't even know we're not dreaming.
Of course things like relativity, empty atoms and other non-intuitive discoveries reinforce a need to not overstate what you're sure of.

Whatever you want to call it it is important to be clear about how certain we are of it I would agree.

Into the Night wrote:
Air is a mixture of gases and vapors. Many of these don't mix really well. ...
Wet air does not mix well with dry air. Warm air does not mix well with cold air...CO2...heavier a molecule than most any other in the atmosphere. It tends to stay fairly localized to it's source. This is true of many gases, including ozone, methane, etc....
Ozone forms in one part of the atmosphere and is primarily destroyed in another. It is not uniform in the atmosphere.

No, the atmosphere is not a uniform hunk of gases and vapors by any means.


So more like a chunky stew than a uniform soup.

Into the Night wrote:
. You cannot make a relative comparison without making at least two absolute measurements.

I meant:
Taking 4 readings at 1 inch and 30ft down and getting Fahrenheit:
100 / 58
-10 / 55
60. / 57
80. / 55

I can make the reasonable judgement that the temp at 30ft doesn't correlate with the temp at 1"

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.

But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it?

Not really. The overall cloud cover over the whole Earth doesn't change much. ....
No. You see, clouds are only really reflective in the visible light bands. They are quite 'dark' in other frequency bands, including infrared.


Right I forgot about clouds and infrared.

So it seems it's locally that clouds really vary and it's pretty averaged out globally albedo wise.


NASA Albedo

I'm assuming that to take a "snap shot" of the albedo a satellite would need to be able to do so for the full spectrum from ultra violet down to infra red.
Edited on 05-08-2019 07:11
05-08-2019 07:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:
So it seems it's locally that clouds really vary and it's pretty averaged out globally albedo wise.


NASA Albedo

I'm assuming that to take a "snap shot" of the albedo a satellite would need to be able to do so for the full spectrum from ultra violet down to infra red.

I'm going to offer two suggestions to help you steer clear of misinformation and misunderstandings:

1) avoid the word "albedo" and any conclusions coming from those using that word. Science uses "emissivity." The scientifically illiterate use "albedo" as a credential to prove they are more scientifically illiterate than their competition.

2) NASA and NOAA use "albedo" because they have no affiliation with science, only with politics, and you have to expect that everything they present will be in support of "Climate Change" and of left wing politics ... and you should therefore expect any actual scientist to summarily dismiss those conclusions, or to dismiss your conclusions if you absorbed them from those organizations.


I tell you this so you don't think I'm "attacking EVERY point" when I dismiss outright anything with either NASA or NOAA as a source, or I rip into dogma involving "albedo."

The MANUAL:



Albedo: Noun.
In the Climate Science lexicon, an expression of one's devotion to the Global Warming faith. "Albedo" is used to express one's dedication to scientific illiteracy in the same manner that some Christian clergy take vows of poverty or celibacy. The word albedo is often used to virtue-signal to other warmizombies that no amount of actual science will ever be considered acceptable and that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings can trust him/her to adhere to the Global Warming faith.

Note: Literally, albedo is a numeric value computed as 1.0-emissivity. Unfortunately, the term emissivity is an evil component of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is actual science that shows Greenhouse Effect to not be possible, ergo the term emissivity is considered sacrilegious and is avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law: proper noun.
To wamizombies and Climate-lemmings the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the most vile of all sacrilege.; It states, among other things, that a black body's temperature and radiance move in the same direction, i.e. increase with increase, decrease with decrease. This is sacrilegious to Climate Science that mandates belief that the earth's radiance decreases from greenhouse gas while the earth's temperature increases.

Note: In classical physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all matter, always, everywhere. This includes the earth with its atmosphere and hydrosphere. The law applies to all bodies of matter regardless of size, shape or zodiac sign. Due to the extreme extent that this law riles religious Climate sensitivities, Climate Science mandates that all of its congregation believe unconditionally that the Stefan-Boltzmann law simply does not apply to earth. Period. End of story. Any reason whatsoever is accepted as perfectly legitimate justification for this belief. The standard justifications that are officially endorsed by Climate Scientists are "the earth has an atmosphere" or "the earth isn't a perfect black body."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 07:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:avoid the word "albedo" and any conclusions coming from those using that word. Science uses "emissivity."


OK so I thought that "emissivity" was only talking about how much radiation came from a body from thermal energy but I see that's related. In looking this up I'm seeing I may have answered the question I was about to ask.

Do I have this right:

Energy in = Energy out

In my own street jargon:

Sun shine = Energy In
Reflictiveness + Getting hot and then radiating that out = total energy out

So "emmissivity" is inversely proportional to what some call "albedo" (making the word unnecessary) which just means the sun shine that bounces right off an object without resulting in the object radiating the energy after it's temporarily converted to thermal energy?

I mean I don't see a problem with using Albedo to keep things easy since referring to the inverse of something can get confusing but I got you I think.

And you can't know the emmissivity of something without a visit because a reflection is still radiation? A white body and a black body have the same radiation output, that being all of it?

Though I'm guessing the frequencies of the radiation get rearranged.
Edited on 05-08-2019 07:32
05-08-2019 08:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote: Do I have this right:

Energy in = Energy out

You are correct. The word is "equilibrium."

We talked previously about Work vs. Power and Joules vs. Watts.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that an amount of energy remains the same in a closed system. Equilibrium says that rate of energy in equals the rate of energy out.

tmiddles wrote: So "emmissivity" is inversely proportional to what some call "albedo" (making the word unnecessary)

Exactly. When someone is talking "albedo" he is talking about things that reduce emissivity.

You were previously talking about clouds affecting albedo. Your whole line of reasoning would have been clearer and easier for you identify points of confusion if you had simply been writing in terms of clouds reducing earth's emissivity. All the while you would have been able, were you so inclined, to cross-reference your thoughts directly with Stefan-Boltzmann:

Radiance = Kelvins^4 * Emissivity * Boltzmann

i.e. you would be able to remain consistent with science while working through your thoughts, until you arrived at a question which would then be generally better formulated.

tmiddles wrote: I mean I don't see a problem with using Albedo to keep things easy since referring to the inverse of something can get confusing but I got you I think.

The problem is that it doesn't make things simpler; it's a convolution.

But beyond that, I can tell you that using "albedo" is like carrying a sign that reads "I HATE SCIENCE! BAN SCIENCE NOW!" The word "albedo" is my red flag that the speaker is scientifically illiterate and will be calling me a "troll" upon my trying to help him. It's a guarantee I can take to the bank.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 08:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:The word is "equilibrium."


Got it!

So getting to what came up with ITN and the emissivities consistency with random cloud movement/amount as well as of course the "changing face" of earth with variations in the emissivity of land

Emissivity depends on land cover, with high values over dense vegetation regions and apparently low values over desert regions. In addition, seasonality is evident over Sahara Desert edges and boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere.

And so on.

Clouds have an emissivity of 0.41 to 0.84
while water is 0.9-0.95 0.9-0.95

So there would be a flicker or modulation in the emissivity of Earth right?
05-08-2019 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The word is "equilibrium."


Got it!


tmiddles wrote: Clouds have an emissivity of ...

It doesn't work that way. You can't break down/subdivide the body in question. Emissivity is the total combined absorptivity/radiativity of the entire body, e.g. earth, over all wavelengths.

If you insist on "breaking it down" and analyzing individual components then you must refer to "absorptivity" at all the different wavelengths. Kirchoff taught us that the radiativity of something will equal its absorptivity.

I don't believe anyone has been able to do this for all the objects of forests, for clouds, for, well anything.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 23:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
It doesn't work that way. You can't break down/subdivide the body in question.


Well you can if you reassemble them back into the whole.

For the purposes of having a coherent model to discuss my only meaning was that Earth's emissivity hour to hour would vary, within a range, based on the cloud formation and what portion of the Earth's non-uniform "face" is at high noon down below.

Correct?

My understanding is that factors at play in "Energy In" would be:
Variation in Earth's emissivity (which would include clouds, rotation and it's angle of rotation in relation to the Sun)
Variation in the Earths orbit (distance from the sun)
Variation in the radiation from the Sun (really just solar flairs)
Any interference between the Earth and Sun (lunar eclipse)
05-08-2019 23:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:For the purposes of having a coherent model to discuss my only meaning was that Earth's emissivity hour to hour would vary, within a range, based on the cloud formation and what portion of the Earth's non-uniform "face" is at high noon down below.

Correct?

We don't know that. We don't know if the earth's emissivity is fluctuating drastically every second or if the earth's emissivity is riding constant. We don't know if anything causes an increase in the earth's emissivity, casuses a decrease, or what. We do not have the means to measure the earth's emissivity nor can we discern if photons coming from the earth are earth's thermal radiation (because it was previously absorbed) or if they were simply reflected (never having been absorbed).

Science treats emissivity as a constant.

tmiddles wrote: My understanding is that factors at play in "Energy In" would be:
Variation in Earth's emissivity (which would include clouds, rotation and it's angle of rotation in relation to the Sun)
Variation in the Earths orbit (distance from the sun)
Variation in the radiation from the Sun (really just solar flairs)
Any interference between the Earth and Sun (lunar eclipse)


tmiddles, no ... you know what the science says, i.e.:

Radiance = Kelvins^4 * Emissivity * Boltzmann

Ergo,

1. anything affecting the sun's emitted radiance, e.g. solar flares, sun spots, solar cycles, etc...
2. anything affecting the quantity of earth's incident energy, e.g. orbit, eclipse, etc...
3. anything that affects the earth's emissivity, presuming that is possible.

The Boltzmann constant is a constant. It never changes.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 00:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:

The Boltzmann constant is a constant. It never changes.

.


Yes but of course emissivity can change. If I have a rotating ball and on one side it's white and on the other side it's black it would alternate from 1.0 to 0.0.

The Boltzmann constant isn't the emissivity. The emissivity is a variable in the equation.

So since Earth isn't constant in what the radiation is encountering it's emissivity is not unchanging.

We don't need to calculate the exact emissivity to know that it doesn't remain the same.

No?
06-08-2019 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Air is a mixture of gases and vapors. Many of these don't mix really well. ...
Wet air does not mix well with dry air. Warm air does not mix well with cold air...CO2...heavier a molecule than most any other in the atmosphere. It tends to stay fairly localized to it's source. This is true of many gases, including ozone, methane, etc....
Ozone forms in one part of the atmosphere and is primarily destroyed in another. It is not uniform in the atmosphere.

No, the atmosphere is not a uniform hunk of gases and vapors by any means.

No. More like oil and water.


So more like a chunky stew than a uniform soup.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
. You cannot make a relative comparison without making at least two absolute measurements.

I meant:
Taking 4 readings at 1 inch and 30ft down and getting Fahrenheit:
100 / 58
-10 / 55
60. / 57
80. / 55

I can make the reasonable judgement that the temp at 30ft doesn't correlate with the temp at 1"

No, you can't. Using randU numbers as data is a fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.

But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it?

Not really. The overall cloud cover over the whole Earth doesn't change much. ....
No. You see, clouds are only really reflective in the visible light bands. They are quite 'dark' in other frequency bands, including infrared.


Right I forgot about clouds and infrared.

So it seems it's locally that clouds really vary and it's pretty averaged out globally albedo wise.


NASA Albedo

I'm assuming that to take a "snap shot" of the albedo a satellite would need to be able to do so for the full spectrum from ultra violet down to infra red.

A satellite is incapable of measuring emissivity.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote: My post was about the topic of this thread.


I carefully looked over this long dead thread before reviving it. It suffered from a disorganized and scattered argument that never got anywhere. As I said elsewhere I see that ITN and IBdaMann don't want to let things go when they see errors. So we can just clear things up one by one, in an organized fashion. The breakdown with posters and ITN/IBdaMann on the board I think goes something like this:

DolphinHater: Look you have to recognize the dangers of fish like Dolphins
IBdaMann/ITN: Dolphins aren't fish at all
DolphinHater: Oh so you don't believe in Dolphins now! You are CRAZY
IBdaMann/ITN: Sea life misidentification fallacy
DolphinHater: Dolphins killed my whole family, here is a photo of them dying
IBdaMann/ITN: Sympathy fallacy and Sea Life misidentification fallacy

So far I think this has been very valuable. This isn't just about convincing anyone of anything it's about clearly organizing the information and ideas and clearing up things that are wrong.

Give it a chance.



I understand the science. I have my own view which does not fit in with either yours or their perspective. I am the odd man out.


You deny science, James.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:


At the very least I want a world that's less ignorant of the basics.



Not going to happen. You've seen what Harvey has posted to me. It's typical of what I put up with. You even told me to leave you alone because I tried telling you that damann doesn't know that much.
I'll give you the very basic Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Electricity causes an element in your oven or on your stove to heat up. It radiates heat. And if you have natural gas, same thing.
As a result you fix yourself something to eat and it's hot.
Is your food as hot as the source of heat? It's not.
This is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applied to engineering. It helps to demonstrate how heat can move from one medium to another. And the environment a heat source is in will influence the flow of heat. An air conditioner uses the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It's the inverse function. It's what a heat pump is based on. The constant was actually developed for engineering. It's what helped drive innovation at the turn of the 20th century. A lot of science was developed for commercial applications. Some in here say that technological innovation had nothing to do with it.


The Boltzmann constant has nothing to do with engineering. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used by, but not created by engineers.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:Yes but of course emissivity can change.

Of course you bear the full burden to support that assertion. Start with the earth. Show us your valid dataset of emissivity measurements.

tmiddles wrote: If I have a rotating ball and on one side it's white and on the other side it's black it would alternate from 1.0 to 0.0.

Granted, an infinitely repeating cycle that doesn't change.

tmiddles wrote: The emissivity is a variable in the equation.

It's a constant in blackbody science. A body's emissivity is treated like a person's blood type, a constant.

If emissivity changes, the object is said to be a different body.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 00:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:avoid the word "albedo" and any conclusions coming from those using that word. Science uses "emissivity."


OK so I thought that "emissivity" was only talking about how much radiation came from a body from thermal energy but I see that's related.
No. Emissivity is how well a surface can convert thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Temperature and only temperature determines how much thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy.
tmiddles wrote:
In looking this up I'm seeing I may have answered the question I was about to ask.

Do I have this right:

Energy in = Energy out

In my own street jargon:

Sun shine = Energy In

So far, so good.
tmiddles wrote:
Reflictiveness + Getting hot and then radiating that out = total energy out

No. Reflected light + emitted light due to temperature + emitted light due to harmonic emission = total energy out.
tmiddles wrote:
So "emmissivity" is inversely proportional to what some call "albedo" (making the word unnecessary) which just means the sun shine that bounces right off an object without resulting in the object radiating the energy after it's temporarily converted to thermal energy?

Reflected light is not converted to thermal energy. It is simply reflected. It has no other interaction with matter.
tmiddles wrote:
I mean I don't see a problem with using Albedo to keep things easy since referring to the inverse of something can get confusing but I got you I think.

Introducing a complexity is unnecessary. Emissivity is used.
tmiddles wrote:
And you can't know the emmissivity of something without a visit because a reflection is still radiation?

If by radiation, you mean light coming the surface of a planet, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
A white body and a black body have the same radiation output, that being all of it?

Base rate fallacy. You are comparing an relative ideal to an absolute value.
tmiddles wrote:
Though I'm guessing the frequencies of the radiation get rearranged.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The word is "equilibrium."


Got it!

So getting to what came up with ITN and the emissivities consistency with random cloud movement/amount as well as of course the "changing face" of earth with variations in the emissivity of land

Emissivity depends on land cover, with high values over dense vegetation regions and apparently low values over desert regions. In addition, seasonality is evident over Sahara Desert edges and boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere.

And so on.

Clouds have an emissivity of 0.41 to 0.84
while water is 0.9-0.95 0.9-0.95

So there would be a flicker or modulation in the emissivity of Earth right?

The emissivity of a cloud is unknown. The emissivity of a patch of ocean water is unknown.
Argument from randU fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It doesn't work that way. You can't break down/subdivide the body in question.


Well you can if you reassemble them back into the whole.

For the purposes of having a coherent model to discuss my only meaning was that Earth's emissivity hour to hour would vary, within a range, based on the cloud formation and what portion of the Earth's non-uniform "face" is at high noon down below.

Correct?

My understanding is that factors at play in "Energy In" would be:
Variation in Earth's emissivity (which would include clouds, rotation and it's angle of rotation in relation to the Sun)
Variation in the Earths orbit (distance from the sun)
Variation in the radiation from the Sun (really just solar flairs)
Any interference between the Earth and Sun (lunar eclipse)


Unnecessary complexity. See Kirchoff's law, which you are ignoring.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

The Boltzmann constant is a constant. It never changes.

.


Yes but of course emissivity can change. If I have a rotating ball and on one side it's white and on the other side it's black it would alternate from 1.0 to 0.0.

The emissivity of a ball painted black on one side and white on the other is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
The Boltzmann constant isn't the emissivity. The emissivity is a variable in the equation.

Emissivity is not a variable. It is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
So since Earth isn't constant in what the radiation is encountering it's emissivity is not unchanging.

Emissivity has nothing to do with what light is shining on Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
We don't need to calculate the exact emissivity to know that it doesn't remain the same.

Emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
No?

Divisional error fallacy. You are using set as a subset. See Kirchoff's law.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 01:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
No. More like oil and water.
...
A satellite is incapable of measuring emissivity.


Yeah I can see that you shake up dressing and see "fronts" of oil pushing against vinegar ect.

So a satellite is getting a mix of what is reflected and what is radiated correct? So it's cannot measure emissivity for that reason?

Do I have that right?

If we look at a planet through a telescope even with infra/ultra filters or what not we don't know the emissivity because we get the reflected radiation along with the radiated radiation.

Right?

As for the varying emissivity it seems that since this is based on white body / black body we can be confident it's not entirely flat line consistent since the Earth is not as it rotates and clouds form randomly.

I think I'm missing something. Are you saying the emissivity of Earth is a constant?? I'm assuming if you are you mean "practically" a constant? Since it obviously changes to some degree.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If I have a rotating ball and on one side it's white and on the other side it's black it would alternate from 1.0 to 0.0.

Granted, an infinitely repeating cycle that doesn't change.


OK so a white/black ball with a rotation would have an emissivity that was constant over a certain time frame but it would pulse wouldn't it?

I'm not trying to assert any specific value just get a handle on what we are talking about.

I thought I was understanding emissivity but as a variable not as a constant. It would be constant only if what is being exposed to the input radiation is constant.
06-08-2019 01:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
The emissivity of a ball painted black on one side and white on the other is unknown.


OK I need some help with this. I thought it would have a pulsing emissivity.
06-08-2019 01:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Though I'm guessing the frequencies of the radiation get rearranged.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


I didn't mean the formula. I meant what we could observe of an object from a distance would have some unique difference in the wavelengths of radiation coming off of it as compared with the wavelengths hitting it.

A perfect black body getting a low level of white light would only radiate infrared light.

A perfect white body would radiate the exact same white light it got.

I'm asking here guys, not asserting.
Edited on 06-08-2019 01:20
06-08-2019 01:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:So a satellite is getting a mix of what is reflected and what is radiated correct? So it's cannot measure emissivity for that reason?

Correct. We do not have technology that can discern photons that were reflected from photons that were emitted. Photons don't come with little identifier tags. There is no way to measure emissivity, even if we could get a billion satellites measuring ... whatever the satellites might measure to gauge emissivity.

tmiddles wrote: If we look at a planet through a telescope even with infra/ultra filters or what not we don't know the emissivity because we get the reflected radiation along with the radiated radiation.

That would be correct. I think you have this point.

tmiddles wrote: As for the varying emissivity it seems that since this is based on white body / black body we can be confident it's not entirely flat line consistent since the Earth is not as it rotates and clouds form randomly.

No. Your sentence is confusing and I'm not sure what you are getting at but regardless, no, we just don't know that. You are speculating, which is based on your own reasoning and experience, so naturally you might very well be confident in your belief ... but notice that *I* am not confident in your belief. We do not know, and any emissivity fluctuation might very well be so negligible that it is not measurable/perceptible/detectable ... which sure looks the same as flat-line constant ... which leaves us at "we don't know." I happen to be more confident with the speculation that the earth's emissivity is essentially constant. I have travelled all over the world and day/night transitions are the same no matter where I go, as if there simply are no perceptible emissivity fluctuations.

I have no data. I have no measurements. I have only my experience, so that's what I'm using. I have never observed in my lifetime anything that would lead me to believe that the earth's emissivity has ever changed to any measurable/perceptible extent.

Could I be mistaken? Yes. Could the reality be something other than what I believe? Yes. Do I believe that the reality is something other than what I believe? No.

tmiddles wrote:I think I'm missing something. Are you saying the emissivity of Earth is a constant??

I am saying that EMISSIVITY is a constant in blackbody science. For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann law has two variables (one dependent variable, RADIANCE, and one independent variable, TEMPERATURE) and two constants (EMISSIVTY & BOLTZMANN).

RADIANCE = TEMPERATURE^4 * EMISSIVITY * BOLTZMANN

Again, the science treats EMISSIVITY as a constant. If an object changes emissivity, e.g. a shiny iron ball rusts over, then the science considers the rusty ball as a different body with a different EMISSIVITY constant.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 01:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:You are speculating, which is based on your own reasoning ... emissivity fluctuation might very well be so negligible that it is not measurable/perceptible/detectable ...


No belief at all the way you've put it now makes sense. A variable like cloud formation can have wild swings in one location as we all know from first hand experience. Take the whole planet and now the wild swings begin t even out. Take the whole planet over a 10 day period and it seem reasonable that the emissivity of any 10 day period on earth would be "essentially" constant.

I find it useful to take extreme examples in my head to get a concept down: Black body, White body, planet that is entirely copper, half black/ half white hemispheres, planet that is entirely made of Styrofoam, ect.

Helps to clarify the principles involved.

IBdaMann wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law has two variables (one dependent variable, RADIANCE, and one independent variable, TEMPERATURE) and two constants (EMISSIVTY & BOLTZMANN).


And if I'm not mistaken from a strictly math vocab perspective:

RADIANCE = TEMPERATURE^4 * EMISSIVITY * BOLTZMANN

R=T^4*E*B

variable=variable^4*variable*constant

In the sense that it's the only number that's always the same no mater when the formula is used.
Edited on 06-08-2019 02:14
06-08-2019 02:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
tmiddles wrote:
RADIANCE = TEMPERATURE^4 * EMISSIVITY * BOLTZMANN


give me a bit with this I have to understand it better. gonna watch some videos later tonight.
06-08-2019 02:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. More like oil and water.
...
A satellite is incapable of measuring emissivity.


Yeah I can see that you shake up dressing and see "fronts" of oil pushing against vinegar ect.

So a satellite is getting a mix of what is reflected and what is radiated correct? So it's cannot measure emissivity for that reason?

It is getting a mix of radiated light due to temperature (blackbody radiance), radiated light due to harmonic radiance (the kind of light LEDs, glow worms, etc. put out), and reflected light from a variety of sources, including the Sun.
tmiddles wrote:
Do I have that right?

No. The list I gave above.
tmiddles wrote:
If we look at a planet through a telescope even with infra/ultra filters or what not we don't know the emissivity because we get the reflected radiation along with the radiated radiation.

Right?

You repeated the question. Same answer.
tmiddles wrote:
As for the varying emissivity it seems that since this is based on white body / black body we can be confident it's not entirely flat line consistent since the Earth is not as it rotates and clouds form randomly.

The emissivity of clouds is unknown. Each cloud has a range of emissivity even within it.
tmiddles wrote:
I think I'm missing something.

Yes. Frequencies of light that you can't see.
tmiddles wrote:
Are you saying the emissivity of Earth is a constant??

It is treated as a measured constant. You measure it once, and that is the value you use.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm assuming if you are you mean "practically" a constant? Since it obviously changes to some degree.

If it changes, it is considered a different body. You must measure emissivity again.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If I have a rotating ball and on one side it's white and on the other side it's black it would alternate from 1.0 to 0.0.

Granted, an infinitely repeating cycle that doesn't change.


OK so a white/black ball with a rotation would have an emissivity that was constant over a certain time frame but it would pulse wouldn't it?

Unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not trying to assert any specific value just get a handle on what we are talking about.

We are talking about how easily a surface at a given temperature radiates blackbody radiance. The color of that surface doesn't really mean that much.
tmiddles wrote:
I thought I was understanding emissivity but as a variable not as a constant. It would be constant only if what is being exposed to the input radiation is constant.

It has nothing to do with 'input radiation'. It has everything to do with how easily blackbody radiance at a given temperature occurs.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 02:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The emissivity of a ball painted black on one side and white on the other is unknown.


OK I need some help with this. I thought it would have a pulsing emissivity.


The basic problem is that you are only considering the visible frequencies of light. Most light is not visible to us.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 02:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Though I'm guessing the frequencies of the radiation get rearranged.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


I didn't mean the formula. I meant what we could observe of an object from a distance would have some unique difference in the wavelengths of radiation coming off of it as compared with the wavelengths hitting it.
tmiddles wrote:Which does not tell us temperature or anything. We don't know:
* how much light is reflected light.
* how much light is refracted light.
* how much light is scattered light.
* all the sources of reflected, scattered, refracted, or absorbed light.
* how much light is emitted according the temperature of the surface.
* how much light is emitted through harmonic emission.

A perfect black body getting a low level of white light would only radiate infrared light.

A perfect white body would radiate the exact same white light it got.

I'm asking here guys, not asserting.



The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 02:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
We are talking about how easily a surface at a given temperature radiates blackbody radiance. The color of that surface doesn't really mean that much


Yeah I need a little time to study up on this. I thought it was simply Emissivity = how reflective something - 1

But I was wondering while reading how it is that they never talk about a light source.

Just read this:
Leslie's cube ...Each side of a cube is coated with different materials with varying emissivities. The center of the cube is filled with hot water ...The sides that are coated in a shiny metal appear to be cooler

WTF??

Give me some time I'm at work but can get a better handle on this later.
06-08-2019 06:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
tmiddles wrote:
WTF??


OK so I was just thinking about emissivity in terms of energy going in, instead of being reflecting away, when it's defined by how energy goes out. "absorption" would be the term for the energy going in. Also I think like most people I think about conduction with heat a lot more than radiation. Since shiny stainless steel is a great conductor of thermal energy it's harder for me to understand from experience how it's a poor emitter of radiant heat.

So let me see if I have this straight:

emissivity is how readily thermal energy radiates out from a surface via radiation (from infra-red on up depending on the temperature).

What determines how easily thermal energy can radiate out is the quality of the surface of the object. Doesn't matter what's right behind that surface. A basketball covered with flat grey paint and a sold steel ball covered with the same flat grey paint will have the same emissivity. That of flat grey paint.

If you had two identical steel balls, one polished and one rusted, heated them both up to 200 C and placed them inside a vacuum, the polished ball would lose it's thermal energy far more slowly. Radiation being the only exit available.
(emissivity of polished steel: 0.16, oxidized/rusted 0.83)

But it doesn't matter what the composition of matter is, the emissivity ONLY cares about the very surface.

emissivity does correlate with how "reflective" something is inversely, what's often called albedo for Earth (oh no! Bad word! haha). The more reflective something is the lower the emissivity.

Sound about right?
Edited on 06-08-2019 06:44
06-08-2019 06:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
tmiddles wrote:
Sound about right?


So I realize that doesn't really say anything new other than that I'm less confused about vocabulary at this point.

The Earth has a very complex collection of different emissivities which includes the oceans, sand, rock, trees, clouds, atmosphere, and so on. It's not some consistent perfect grey body of some value.

Also it's the full spectrum of light that matters not what human's notice. Ice and snow actually have pretty high emissivity even though they are "white". A "perfect white body" would be more like a mirror than something that looked white.

Material Emissivity Coefficient (link
Water 0.993 - 0.998
Ice 0.98
Snow 0.969 - 0.997
Sand 0.949 - 0.962
Granite 0.898
Green Grass 0.975 - 0.986
Clouds being as low as 0.41

"The emissivity" or Earth as a whole could be very difficult to measure precisely. That said at any given time there is an emissivity and it's likely pretty consistent over time.
Edited on 06-08-2019 07:12
06-08-2019 18:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
WTF??


OK so I was just thinking about emissivity in terms of energy going in, instead of being reflecting away, when it's defined by how energy goes out. "absorption" would be the term for the energy going in.

Absorption is not the energy going 'in. Only part of that energy might be absorbed. The rest might be reflected, refracted, or just pass right through the material without being affected at all, depending on the frequency. Remember what appears opaque to you might be quite transparent at some other frequency (and usually is). What appears transparent to you might be quite opaque at some other frequency (and usually is).

We only see a very small part of the band.

tmiddles wrote:
Also I think like most people I think about conduction with heat a lot more than radiation.

Most people think about radiant heat when they enjoy a nice warm day on the beach, at least on a superficial level. Mostly they think about the nice warm day on the beach.


The difference is that most people think visible light is the only important type of light, or that infrared light is the most important type of light. Some who are worried about sunburn think that UV is the most important type of light.

Practically no one but scientists and technicians think an AM radio signal is a type of light, but it is. Oddly enough, people also don't think of X-rays as a type of light, but it is.

tmiddles wrote:
Since shiny stainless steel is a great conductor of thermal energy it's harder for me to understand from experience how it's a poor emitter of radiant heat.

Because again, you are thinking in terms of visible light.
tmiddles wrote:
So let me see if I have this straight:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
emissivity is how readily thermal energy radiates out from a surface via radiation (from infra-red on up depending on the temperature).

No. From ANY frequency, from anything >0Hz on up.
tmiddles wrote:
What determines how easily thermal energy can radiate out is the quality of the surface of the object. Doesn't matter what's right behind that surface. A basketball covered with flat grey paint and a sold steel ball covered with the same flat grey paint will have the same emissivity. That of flat grey paint.

Close, but not quite. Flat gray paint is transparent to some frequencies, including some infrared frequencies.
tmiddles wrote:
If you had two identical steel balls, one polished and one rusted, heated them both up to 200 C and placed them inside a vacuum, the polished ball would lose it's thermal energy far more slowly. Radiation being the only exit available.

Generally true, but remember rust is transparent to some frequencies.
tmiddles wrote:
(emissivity of polished steel: 0.16, oxidized/rusted 0.83)

The emissivity is neither is unknown. It must be measured.
tmiddles wrote:
But it doesn't matter what the composition of matter is, the emissivity ONLY cares about the very surface.

But WHICH surface? The one under the paint or the paint itself?
tmiddles wrote:
emissivity does correlate with how "reflective" something is inversely, what's often called albedo for Earth (oh no! Bad word! haha). The more reflective something is the lower the emissivity.

Albedo is simply the reverse of emissivity. It is 1-emissivity. An ideal black body would have a 0% albedo, and an ideal white body would have a 100% albedo. Using it adds nothing but complexity.
tmiddles wrote:
Sound about right?

Sort of, with the corrections given.

The concept of a surface for terms of emissivity is an important one. It's also not an obvious one. Here's a poser for you: Does a gas have a surface?


The Parrot Killer
Page 6 of 17<<<45678>>>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface2020-10-2019 23:41
Election Law3208-10-2019 13:02
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ 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