Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 9 of 19<<<7891011>>>
20-08-2019 04:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?

Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.

.


So you have confidence in the the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is based on your personal experience in the lab? Not even on the work done by Ludwig Boltzmann or Josef Stefan?

Did you have a text book you still trust?

Is there any text book on fundamental thermodynamics that doesn't teach lies about Radiative Heat Transfer ?

I'm trying to understand what you and ITN do rely on or trust. You have sounded very confident about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics so why is that trusted and not the formula for Radiative Heat Transfer which is on the same page in the same book?
20-08-2019 07:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Another text book:
Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism

Talking about space blankets and hypothermia! In comes Stefan-Boltzman:
NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
Subtracting the emitted radiation power from the absorbed radiation power we can determine the net radiation power to the object (click through to see both formula's side by side)
20-08-2019 10:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
OK two more: "MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael - Department of Mechanical Engineering
aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my



From:
H E A T A N D M A S S TRANSFER
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS
FIFTH EDITION ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1

Page 28


and then Page 29


Working through a problem on a later page:
20-08-2019 12:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this? Do we go to some website, as if there is any human who gets to arbitrate what is science and what is not? Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

[Hint: Into the Night and I have discussed this very issue with you ad nauseum]

Let's presume you might very well be correct. What should we do?



IBdaMann wrote:Nature cannot adhere to one unambiguous model while also adhereing to another unambiguous model. One must be discarded.

So, what do we do?


tmiddles wrote:I'm trying to understand what you and ITN do rely on or trust.

I think it's time to answer my questions. The answer to your question is the correct answer to my question.

[hint: we have discussed it at length]

.


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
20-08-2019 15:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

What we should all try to do is make sense. We were doing pretty well up to this point. Once I realized you were actually smart guys it was fun learning about this stuff with you. This has been a disappointing turn of events.

One thing you and ITN have consistently done on this board is confidently lay down the law, literally! Stefan-Boltzman Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics over and over, from another thread:

Into the Night wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:...Just listen to Merrifield in this video...

No need. Any professor, 'scientist', or anyone else that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics is no one to bother listening to.
link
IBdaMann wrote:
All matter radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann. All matter, always, everywhere.
link
IBdaMann wrote:
The laws of physics apply always, everywhere. If you remember that golden rule you'll make great strides in avoiding silly pitfall

You've also made it clear you both believe that if someone does want to challenge the laws of physics and make some wackadoo assertion they have to prove it.

link
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: Any link would be fine....

What science am I supposed to present? I am not the one asserting a "greenhouse effect."
So you still don't understand the concept of "burden of proof" nor the fallacy of attempting to shift your burden of proof?
I'm making no assertion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
...
link
IBdaMann wrote:
It's your claim that earth's emissivity is changing before our eyes. It's your burden to show it.
link
IBdaMann wrote:
YOU bear the full responsibility to prove your assertion true. No one else is required to prove it false. Until you prove your assertion true, your claims are not "denied," they are summarily dismissed.

Now claiming that radiation heat transfer doesn't exist according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law:

...is a wackadoo idea. But you go much further! You make the entirely unsupported claim that the hot body is totally unaffected by the radiance of the cooler one. While it's by your own rules your burden to prove this that's a moot point since you can't. It is a law of physics and you can't break it. Neither of you could even provide a rational for why you would not trust it but trust other laws of physics since NONE of them have been broken.

IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this?

You guys are hopelessly wrong, FLAT EARTH wrong!, just admit it and let's move on.
20-08-2019 17:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote: What we should all try to do is make sense.

Look, I asked you a simple, strightforward question three times with the purpose of getting to the heart of your question. I'm not going to ask again.

You apparently don't want your question answered, do you?

Of course not. As long as it remains unanswered in your mind, you maintain plausable deniability of any reason to say that it is not "what we know."

Then you will claim that the earth behaves in this "other" way that allows for Global Warming. Am I right?

Anyway, I guess you are done discussing. Let me know when you want to resume.


.


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
20-08-2019 17:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

What we should all try to do is make sense. We were doing pretty well up to this point. Once I realized you were actually smart guys it was fun learning about this stuff with you. This has been a disappointing turn of events.

One thing you and ITN have consistently done on this board is confidently lay down the law, literally! Stefan-Boltzman Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics over and over, from another thread:

Into the Night wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:...Just listen to Merrifield in this video...

No need. Any professor, 'scientist', or anyone else that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics is no one to bother listening to.
link
IBdaMann wrote:
All matter radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann. All matter, always, everywhere.
link
IBdaMann wrote:
The laws of physics apply always, everywhere. If you remember that golden rule you'll make great strides in avoiding silly pitfall

You've also made it clear you both believe that if someone does want to challenge the laws of physics and make some wackadoo assertion they have to prove it.

link
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: Any link would be fine....

What science am I supposed to present? I am not the one asserting a "greenhouse effect."
So you still don't understand the concept of "burden of proof" nor the fallacy of attempting to shift your burden of proof?
I'm making no assertion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
...
link
IBdaMann wrote:
It's your claim that earth's emissivity is changing before our eyes. It's your burden to show it.
link
IBdaMann wrote:
YOU bear the full responsibility to prove your assertion true. No one else is required to prove it false. Until you prove your assertion true, your claims are not "denied," they are summarily dismissed.

Now claiming that radiation heat transfer doesn't exist according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law:

...is a wackadoo idea. But you go much further! You make the entirely unsupported claim that the hot body is totally unaffected by the radiance of the cooler one. While it's by your own rules your burden to prove this that's a moot point since you can't. It is a law of physics and you can't break it. Neither of you could even provide a rational for why you would not trust it but trust other laws of physics since NONE of them have been broken.

IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this?

You guys are hopelessly wrong, FLAT EARTH wrong!, just admit it and let's move on.


WRONG. You are still confusing light and heat.


The Parrot Killer
20-08-2019 23:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
Look, I asked you a simple, strightforward question three times with the purpose of getting to the heart of your question. I'm not going to ask again.


I don't know what question you mean.

Also the pretense of representing any established or proper standard goes out the window when you deny laws of physics.
20-08-2019 23:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are still confusing light and heat.


You are denying a law of physics without even bothering to explain yourself.

Both of you have simply ignored all of my questions above.

What are your standards now?
21-08-2019 02:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Look, I asked you a simple, strightforward question three times with the purpose of getting to the heart of your question. I'm not going to ask again.


I don't know what question you mean.

Also the pretense of representing any established or proper standard goes out the window when you deny laws of physics.


He is not denying the laws of physics. YOU are.


The Parrot Killer
21-08-2019 02:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are still confusing light and heat.


You are denying a law of physics without even bothering to explain yourself.

I am not denying the laws of physics. YOU are.
tmiddles wrote:
Both of you have simply ignored all of my questions above.

No, they've already been answered numerous times.
tmiddles wrote:
What are your standards now?

The same.


The Parrot Killer
21-08-2019 03:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
I am not denying the laws of physics. YOU are.

You deny the law below. You provide no evidence, justification or rational for your denial:


Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Both of you have simply ignored all of my questions above.

No, they've already been answered numerous times.


You answered this?:
tmiddles wrote:
Here's another one:


This page includes a calculator:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

So as you can see if the hot object is 100C there are several different transfers of energy to the colder object. I confirmed this using their calculator
Hot.....Cold....Loss watts
100....100.....0
100.....50......480
100......0.......783
100....-50......957
100....-100....1047

ε - emissivity coefficient used was 1.0
th - object hot temperature (oC) 100C
tc - surroundings cold temperature (oC) from -100 to 100C
Ac - object area (m2) 1.0

According to you it wouldn't change based on the temp of the colder object right?


And this?:
tmiddles wrote:
It gives an example:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

Now of course losing thermal energy 7 times faster really would come up as an error. In fact it would be pretty noticeable in real life.

But this would only be until the person reached equilibrium at which point 723Watts would suddenly become 0? (or actually it would drop from 723 to just over 624.8Watts, the temp of the room before suddenly BAM! going to zero.


Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What are your standards now?

The same.


That any claim that defies the laws of physics be justified or dismissed. It's your claim that all of the text books are
Into the Night wrote:...still confusing light and heat.
. It's your burden to show it.
21-08-2019 04:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:I don't know what question you mean.

... and you certainly aren't going to look back at my posts to find out.

tmiddles wrote: Also the pretense of representing any established or proper standard goes out the window when you deny laws of physics.

Now you're starting to get it.


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
21-08-2019 04:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
... and you certainly aren't going to look back at my posts to find out.


I can't prevent you from goofing around.

My questions above remain unanswered.
Edited on 21-08-2019 04:59
21-08-2019 05:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and you certainly aren't going to look back at my posts to find out.


I can't prevent you from goofing around.

My questions above remain unanswered.

... and you apparently don't want them answered.

Let me know if you want to resume.

.


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
21-08-2019 05:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
... and you apparently don't want them answered.

Let me know if you want to resume.

.


Yes let's resume. Do you have any interest in answering my questions above?

Are you able to calculate the radiant heat loss of a person in a room as the text book problem presents it?

Do you have any opinion of the veracity and accuracy of the information provided by Engineers toolbox?

Are there any reliable and honest Physics textbooks out there?
Edited on 21-08-2019 05:46
21-08-2019 15:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:
Yes let's resume.

Do you have any interest in answering my questions above?

Yes I do. That's what I was trying to do. My question gets to the heart of yours.

What's your answer?

.


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
21-08-2019 18:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am not denying the laws of physics. YOU are.

You deny the law below. You provide no evidence, justification or rational for your denial:


Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Both of you have simply ignored all of my questions above.

No, they've already been answered numerous times.


You answered this?:
tmiddles wrote:
Here's another one:


This page includes a calculator:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

So as you can see if the hot object is 100C there are several different transfers of energy to the colder object. I confirmed this using their calculator
Hot.....Cold....Loss watts
100....100.....0
100.....50......480
100......0.......783
100....-50......957
100....-100....1047

ε - emissivity coefficient used was 1.0
th - object hot temperature (oC) 100C
tc - surroundings cold temperature (oC) from -100 to 100C
Ac - object area (m2) 1.0

According to you it wouldn't change based on the temp of the colder object right?


And this?:
tmiddles wrote:
It gives an example:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

Now of course losing thermal energy 7 times faster really would come up as an error. In fact it would be pretty noticeable in real life.

But this would only be until the person reached equilibrium at which point 723Watts would suddenly become 0? (or actually it would drop from 723 to just over 624.8Watts, the temp of the room before suddenly BAM! going to zero.


Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What are your standards now?

The same.


That any claim that defies the laws of physics be justified or dismissed. It's your claim that all of the text books are
Into the Night wrote:...still confusing light and heat.
. It's your burden to show it.


Light is not heat. Heat is not light.

What you are describing with this equation is heat, not light. Then you turn around and say all light is heat. This is wrong.

Light can be a medium of heat, but it itself is not heat. You are treating it like it is.

Energy lost due to radiance does not require heating something else. You are treating it like it does.

No matter how you cut it, it takes energy to emit light. Once that light is emitted, the energy it took to emit that light is gone from the body that emitted it. It will never come back. The packet of energy we call a photon is long gone.

If, and only if, another body absorbs that photon, and that absorption results in conversion to thermal energy (rather than chemical energy or something), then, and only then, do the equations you are talking about come into play at all.

Does CO2 absorb infrared energy from the surface? Certainly. Is the CO2 warmed in the process? Certainly. But don't forget that the surface was cooled by emitting that light in the first place!

Nuthin' comes for free. You can't create that energy out of nothing. There is a price to pay for every photon emitted.

The practical upshot of this is that radiant heating of CO2 by the surface is nothing more than just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. It is cooled in the process.

What is not absorbed is still radiated from Earth, even if the light is never absorbed by anything. It still costs energy to emit that photon.

Thus, the only equation significant here is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It accurately describes the relation of thermal energy being converted into elecromagnetic energy and and what rate, depending on the temperature of the body. No other body is needed.

Also remember that you can make light by other means than just temperature. It too requires energy to do it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-08-2019 18:35
21-08-2019 21:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:Nature cannot adhere to one unambiguous model while also adhereing to another unambiguous model.


Ah that! I had already asked you and I'll ask again. What are you claiming are the two unambiguous models that nature can't adhere to?

Also it would help me understand your method of solving physics problems if you could solve the person in a room textbook problem,
21-08-2019 21:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am not denying the laws of physics. YOU are.

You deny the law below. You provide no evidence, justification or rational for your denial:



[The practical upshot of this is that radiant heating of CO2 by the surface

Why are you talking about CO2 and the atmosphere and completely ignoring what I posted?

Nothing I've posted was dealing with CO2 or gases at all. The Stefan-Boltzman Law above applies to all black bodies.

And are you not able to do the college physics problem of radiant heat loss for the person in a room?
21-08-2019 21:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Nature cannot adhere to one unambiguous model while also adhereing to another unambiguous model.

Ah that!

No, not that.

Hint: look for question marks
Hint: I asked you three times
Hint: search for the word "nauseum"


.


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
21-08-2019 22:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Nature cannot adhere to one unambiguous model while also adhereing to another unambiguous model.

Ah that!

No, not that.

Hint: look for question marks
Hint: I asked you three times
Hint: search for the word "nauseum"


.


Oh THAT I already answered THAT twice. Look above.
21-08-2019 22:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this? Do we go to some website, as if there is any human who gets to arbitrate what is science and what is not? Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

[Hint: Into the Night and I have discussed this very issue with you ad nauseum]

Let's presume you might very well be correct. What should we do?


Please start by showing me how YOU solve this problem:
tmiddles wrote:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

Now of course losing thermal energy 7 times faster really would come up as an error. In fact it would be pretty noticeable in real life.

But this would only be until the person reached equilibrium at which point 723Watts would suddenly become 0? (or actually it would drop from 723 to just over 624.8Watts, the temp of the room before suddenly BAM! going to zero.


Once I understand how you solve a basic problem I can understand what you're saying. As it is it, it seems you're claiming physics doesn't work.
Edited on 21-08-2019 22:55
21-08-2019 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am not denying the laws of physics. YOU are.

You deny the law below. You provide no evidence, justification or rational for your denial:



[The practical upshot of this is that radiant heating of CO2 by the surface

Why are you talking about CO2 and the atmosphere and completely ignoring what I posted?

Nothing I've posted was dealing with CO2 or gases at all. The Stefan-Boltzman Law above applies to all black bodies.

And are you not able to do the college physics problem of radiant heat loss for the person in a room?


The emissivity of the person is unknown. I do not deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-08-2019 23:31
21-08-2019 23:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this? Do we go to some website, as if there is any human who gets to arbitrate what is science and what is not? Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

[Hint: Into the Night and I have discussed this very issue with you ad nauseum]

Let's presume you might very well be correct. What should we do?

OK, you found it.

Now answer it. We'll discuss.

.


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
22-08-2019 02:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this? Do we go to some website, as if there is any human who gets to arbitrate what is science and what is not? Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

[Hint: Into the Night and I have discussed this very issue with you ad nauseum]

Let's presume you might very well be correct. What should we do?

OK, you found it.

Now answer it. We'll discuss.

.


So you cannot do a simple college physics problem?

And I have already answered your strange statement many times but I'll try once more:

You claim:
IBdaMann wrote:The issue before you is that you have been presented two equations, both as science, yet that are not internally consistent, i.e. they are not compatible.


Yet you stop there when I ask you repeatedly what you view as "not internally consistent" . So what is it? What do you see looking at what's shown below that causes you to say there is something "not internally consistent" because it all makes sense to me:


You are the one making the claim and burden of proof is yours.
22-08-2019 02:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
... so how do we resolve this? Do we go to some website, as if there is any human who gets to arbitrate what is science and what is not? Do we count the number of peer-reviewed articles and establish a "consensus"?

[Hint: Into the Night and I have discussed this very issue with you ad nauseum]

Let's presume you might very well be correct. What should we do?

OK, you found it.

Now answer it. We'll discuss.

.


So you cannot do a simple college physics problem?

And I have already answered your strange statement many times but I'll try once more:

You claim:
IBdaMann wrote:The issue before you is that you have been presented two equations, both as science, yet that are not internally consistent, i.e. they are not compatible.


Yet you stop there when I ask you repeatedly what you view as "not internally consistent" . So what is it? What do you see looking at what's shown below that causes you to say there is something "not internally consistent" because it all makes sense to me:


You are the one making the claim and burden of proof is yours.


Still confusing heat and light.

They are not the same thing.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 04:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
Still confusing heat and light.
They are not the same thing.

Am I? How? What are you claiming does happen?

Would you please complete the physics problem:
Mechanisms-of-Heat-Transfer
Copied from the text book in the link above:
"Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K^4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W.

Significance
This value is a significant rate of heat transfer to the environment (note the minus sign), considering that a person at rest may produce energy at the rate of 125 W and that conduction and convection are also transferring energy to the environment. Indeed, we would probably expect this person to feel cold. Clothing significantly reduces heat transfer to the environment by all mechanisms, because clothing slows down both conduction and convection, and has a lower emissivity (especially if it is light-colored) than skin."


Are they getting it wrong? If so how? What's the right answer?
IBdaMann do you know how to calculate this problem?
22-08-2019 05:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:And I have already answered your strange statement many times but I'll try once more:

You have never answered my question. You have never even tried for us to discuss.

Let me know when you'd like to reengage our discussion by answering my question.


You are the one making the claim and burden of proof is yours.

I have made no claim. I cannot support a claim that was not made.

Let's talk psychology for a moment, yours in particular.

Into the Night and I have reached this point many times. You give yourself away and reveal your agenda with statements like the ones you are now making. Let's review:

1. You came to this site to preach Global Warming, not to learn.

2. You sensed differing viewpoints and you knee-jerked a cry of "TROLLS!" and did the ignore-list thing. There was a variety of unknown things you insisted were "what we know."

3. You had a lucid moment in which you realized that the opposition has an argument involving science-sounding stuff that appears to undermine your Global Warming dogma. You set about to tear apart this argument in defense of your faith.

4. You pretended to be interested in physics so you could learn the argument that supposedly kills Global Warming so you could find the weakness in the argument. I was happy to play along because I know you cannot get around physics.

5. You focused exclusively on the "inner ball/outer shell" example, revealing your intentions. You had previously expressed frustration at your attempts to get around physics being repeatedly thwarted through the exposure of the physics violations you use in your arguments. It was just a matter of time until you presented bogus science that serves your purpose and that you won't have to work around.

6. Upon doing so, you became miffed that your "science" was being challenged and not immediately accepted. You are currently having a meltdown resulting in you begging us to please, please, please just be wrong about something! Unfortunately we can't be wrong if we haven't made any claims. We simply aren't accepting your unsupported assertions of "what we know."

7. I have given you an opportunity to show what argument is false. You are obligated to avoid that at all costs lest you be forced to abandon your last hope of getting around physics and to accept that your religion is FALSE. This is why you dare not answer my question.

... so you have abandoned the discussion. I'll be happy for you to surprise me and to reengage but if you don't it won't be a big shocker.

.


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
22-08-2019 06:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
... so you have abandoned the discussion. I'll be happy for you to surprise me and to reengage but if you don't it won't be a big shocker.
.

Attempt to change the subject is dismissed.

So that you both understand where I'm at in my understanding:
You and ITN are saying there is a conflict with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law applied to Radiation heat transfer. And YES that is a CLAIM.
Neither of you are willing to clarify what that is. Is it Planck? 2nd Law? I don't know.
I have presented you with a simple, relate-able HS level Physics problem with the text books solution and asked you how they got it wrong, if they got it wrong.

Why not just let me know what you consider the right answer to be?

I will make one comment regarding you accusation that I have an agenda:
1- It doesn't matter. Because a law of Physics doesn't care.
2- I don't actually have a Warmazombie Agenda to use your vocabulary. I'm always a bit surprised you take the line with me given my posts like this one:

tmiddles wrote:
dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.


Theory goes that CO2 up temp up right?

What about if CO2 doesn't go up? Could/would the temp go up? Have you EVER heard that discussed? Don't you think it would be important to parse out CO2's impact form other factors?

The data you're referencing I think is reflected below right?:


And now here:


I would argue that U.S. temperature readings are more accurate than global temp readings because it was more actively recorded since 1880 than other locations. Let's assume that the temp readings are accurate enough to be of some use.

The US had very warm weather in the 1930s and you can see the evidence here from the EPA:


But as the CO2 history shows CO2 levels didn't really increase up to 1930. They did increase after that but temperatures fell. In fact in the 1970s there were articles written about a coming ice age.

So being critical of an exclusive focus on CO2 is useful because we need to have perspective on what's really going on IF that's within our ability.

I hope you'll at least agree it's not a simple cause/effect story in the data that is presented. A high school class would be pretty confused hearing the theory and then looking at these charts (which are Nasa, EPA, standard data thrown around).


You and ITN have, as I understand it, taken a hopeless position in deciding that you'd pretend that net radiation is impossible. But if I'm wrong you should be able to do a simple grade school physics problem.
22-08-2019 06:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
tmiddles wrote:You and ITN are saying there is a conflict with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law applied to Radiation heat transfer.

Nope. I am not saying that.

I have no issue with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You are making the claim that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is something other than what it is.

You refuse to discuss the issue lest you have to face some bad news about your religion.

.


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
22-08-2019 06:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
IBdaMann wrote:
You refuse to discuss the issue lest you have to face some bad news about your religion.


Discuss! What would you like to say? Go ahead and ask me a question.

I have no clue what you are driving at. [hint] I have NO CLUE!!! So clarify the question please.

And why won't you discuss the physics problem? I know it's well within your intelligence. I won't say ability because I believe you have tied your own hands on this one.
Edited on 22-08-2019 06:17
22-08-2019 06:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
Still confusing heat and light.
They are not the same thing.


ITN why are you so quiet on this? Where's all your fallacys and commentary?

Can't you apply your surgical critique to a grade school physics problem? I know you have the chops to find the right answer.

The math is already done by them all you have to do is point out how they got it wrong. I even did what I thought your math would be.

tmiddles wrote:
It gives an example:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

Now of course losing thermal energy 7 times faster really would come up as an error. In fact it would be pretty noticeable in real life.

But this would only be until the person reached equilibrium at which point 723Watts would suddenly become 0? (or actually it would drop from 723 to just over 624.8Watts, the temp of the room before suddenly BAM! going to zero.


Did I really make no mistakes at all here? What's the right answer?
Edited on 22-08-2019 06:43
22-08-2019 09:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Still confusing heat and light.
They are not the same thing.

Am I? How? What are you claiming does happen?

Would you please complete the physics problem:
Mechanisms-of-Heat-Transfer
Copied from the text book in the link above:
"Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K^4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W.

Significance
This value is a significant rate of heat transfer to the environment (note the minus sign), considering that a person at rest may produce energy at the rate of 125 W and that conduction and convection are also transferring energy to the environment. Indeed, we would probably expect this person to feel cold. Clothing significantly reduces heat transfer to the environment by all mechanisms, because clothing slows down both conduction and convection, and has a lower emissivity (especially if it is light-colored) than skin."


Are they getting it wrong? If so how? What's the right answer?
IBdaMann do you know how to calculate this problem?


I already described it. You completely ignored it.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 09:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... so you have abandoned the discussion. I'll be happy for you to surprise me and to reengage but if you don't it won't be a big shocker.
.

Attempt to change the subject is dismissed.

He is not changing the subject. He is listing how you have approached this forum thus far.
tmiddles wrote:
So that you both understand where I'm at in my understanding:
You and ITN are saying there is a conflict with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law applied to Radiation heat transfer. And YES that is a CLAIM.

No, there is simply no relation. There is no claim that there is.
tmiddles wrote:
Neither of you are willing to clarify what that is. Is it Planck? 2nd Law? I don't know.

No, there is simply no relation. You are still confusing heat with light.
tmiddles wrote:
I have presented you with a simple, relate-able HS level Physics problem with the text books solution and asked you how they got it wrong, if they got it wrong.

They didn't get it wrong. You did.
tmiddles wrote:
Why not just let me know what you consider the right answer to be?

Sure. What is the measured emissivity of the person?
tmiddles wrote:
I will make one comment regarding you accusation that I have an agenda:
1- It doesn't matter. Because a law of Physics doesn't care.
2- I don't actually have a Warmazombie Agenda to use your vocabulary. I'm always a bit surprised you take the line with me given my posts like this one:

I'm not.
tmiddles wrote:
dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.


Theory goes that CO2 up temp up right?

No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
What about if CO2 doesn't go up? Could/would the temp go up? Have you EVER heard that discussed? Don't you think it would be important to parse out CO2's impact form other factors?

CO2 has no impact on temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
The data you're referencing I think is reflected below right?:


And now here:


I would argue that U.S. temperature readings are more accurate than global temp readings because it was more actively recorded since 1880 than other locations. Let's assume that the temp readings are accurate enough to be of some use.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the U.S. It is not possible to measure the temperature of any State in the U.S. You are still making the same math errors as before. You MUST calculate margin of error. You MUST declare the variance. You MUST select from available data by randN.
tmiddles wrote:
The US had very warm weather in the 1930s and you can see the evidence here from the EPA:

Unknown. The EPA has no data.
tmiddles wrote:
But as the CO2 history shows CO2 levels didn't really increase up to 1930.

No one was attempting to measure atmospheric CO2 in 1930. That measurement didn't start until 1959. It has now been discovered that the Mauna Loa data has been cooked. It's useless.
tmiddles wrote:
They did increase after that

Unknown. It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the U.S. or the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
but temperatures fell.

Unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
In fact in the 1970s there were articles written about a coming ice age.

Just as bogus as the Church of Global Warming.
tmiddles wrote:
So being critical of an exclusive focus on CO2 is useful because we need to have perspective on what's really going on IF that's within our ability.

Nothing. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
I hope you'll at least agree it's not a simple cause/effect story in the data that is presented.

You have presented no data and have demonstrated no cause or effect. Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
A high school class would be pretty confused hearing the theory and then looking at these charts (which are Nasa, EPA, standard data thrown around).

This isn't data. It is manufactured numbers. It is unfortunate the schools continue to call t his data. It's worse than calling a tomato a vegetable (which they also teach).
tmiddles wrote:
You and ITN have, as I understand it, taken a hopeless position in deciding that you'd pretend that net radiation is impossible.

It is not pretend. There is no net heat. There is no net radiance. You are still confusing heat with light as well.
tmiddles wrote:
But if I'm wrong you should be able to do a simple grade school physics problem.

Sure. What's the measured emissivity of the person?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-08-2019 10:07
22-08-2019 09:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You refuse to discuss the issue lest you have to face some bad news about your religion.


Discuss! What would you like to say? Go ahead and ask me a question.

He already has.
tmiddles wrote:
I have no clue what you are driving at. [hint] I have NO CLUE!!! So clarify the question please.

He already has.
tmiddles wrote:
And why won't you discuss the physics problem?

He already has.
tmiddles wrote:
I know it's well within your intelligence. I won't say ability because I believe you have tied your own hands on this one.

His hands are not tied at all. You simply completely ignored the answers he gave. You completely ignored the answers I gave.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 09:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
Sure. What's the measured emissivity of the person?


0.97
It's given in the problem
22-08-2019 09:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
I already described it. You completely ignored it.


The old "Hide the ball" game.

OK you said:
Into the Night wrote:
Still confusing heat and light.
They are not the same thing.

and
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are still confusing light and heat.

and some stuff about CO2, not addressing the person in the room problem:
Into the Night wrote:
Light is not heat. Heat is not light....Does CO2 absorb infrared energy from the surface? Certainly. Is the CO2 warmed in the process? Certainly....The practical upshot of this is that radiant heating of CO2 ...What is not absorbed is still radiated from Earth, ....

and
Into the Night wrote:
The emissivity of the person is unknown. I do not deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Though it's provided in the problem at 0.97
and one more:
Into the Night wrote:
Still confusing heat and light.
They are not the same thing.


So it's 0.97 have at it please
Edited on 22-08-2019 09:59
22-08-2019 10:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Still confusing heat and light.
They are not the same thing.


ITN why are you so quiet on this? Where's all your fallacys and commentary?

I am mostly letting you and IBdaMann argue this...until now.
tmiddles wrote:
Can't you apply your surgical critique to a grade school physics problem? I know you have the chops to find the right answer.

Sure what's the measured emissivity of the person? What's the measured emissivity of the absorbing surface?
tmiddles wrote:
The math is already done by them all you have to do is point out how they got it wrong.

Already did.
tmiddles wrote:
I even did what I thought your math would be.

No, you didn't.
tmiddles wrote:
It gives an example:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Mistake #1: emissivity has no frequency.
tmiddles wrote:
Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

Now of course losing thermal energy 7 times faster really would come up as an error. In fact it would be pretty noticeable in real life.

Mistake #2: the emissivity of the absorbing surface is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
But this would only be until the person reached equilibrium at which point 723Watts would suddenly become 0? (or actually it would drop from 723 to just over 624.8Watts, the temp of the room before suddenly BAM! going to zero.

tmiddles wrote:
Did I really make no mistakes at all here? What's the right answer?

The presence of another body is immaterial to the light emitted by a person due to blackbody radiance.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 10:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1558)
Into the Night wrote:
Mistake #1: ...
Mistake #2:...
The presence of another body is immaterial to the light emitted by a person due to blackbody radiance.


So what's the answer? You go ahead and do it without making mistakes.

The answer would be in watts

They came up with 100 watts as the answer.
Edited on 22-08-2019 10:33
Page 9 of 19<<<7891011>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
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
▲ 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