Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 10 of 17<<<89101112>>>
22-08-2019 10:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sure. What's the measured emissivity of the person?


0.97
It's given in the problem


Okay. Assuming the human has an emissivity of 0.97 (I consider this a randU number), then:

5.6704*10^-8 * 0.97 * 295 degK * 2m^2 average surface area of human skin = 8.348kW of light total across all frequencies combined. The peak of this emission will be in the infrared band.

This result is somewhat less than the total amount our human absorbed, either through conduction, radiance, or by chemical energy. This is because our human emits light that is not blackbody radiance.

Be aware that since the emissivity was a randU number, the answer is likewise a randU number.

Happy with this pointless exercise?


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 11:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Into the Night wrote:
Happy with this pointless exercise?


Thank you!!! Not pointless at all.
It is a thousand times easier for me to understand what you mean working through a problem:

So you used 22C/295K was the temp of the room, the person was 33C/306K but it doesn't matter I followed your math:
5.6704*.00000001*0.97*7573350625*2= -833.11 watts

So would your calculation for the human having 1.5m^2 of skin and being 33C be a loss of:
5.6704*.00000001*0.97*8767700496*1.5= -723.37 watts ?

Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?
Edited on 22-08-2019 12:30
22-08-2019 14:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:Discuss! What would you like to say? Go ahead and ask me a question.

I did, three times, you EVADED each time and I told you I wasn't going to ask again.

You then found the question, repostd it, and yet REFUSED to answer it.

Now you are PRETENDING to have amnesia.

It's a simple matter. Engage in some inner reflection. Search within yourself for the strength to face this issue and when you are ready, just answer my question and we can resume the discussion.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-08-2019 14:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:just answer my question


Don't know what you're asking man.

Seriously.
22-08-2019 15:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:just answer my question


Don't know what you're asking man.

Seriously.

I'm not buying it. You reposted the question. You simply don't have the courage to answer the question. You would rather not discuss the matter than to face that question.

So let's move on to something else until you are ready to discuss this.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-08-2019 15:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
So let's move on to something else until you are ready to discuss this.


Well all I can do is tell you I don't know. I am very confused that you think you've asked anything that would inspire my deliberate evasion. Ask any time I'll do my best.

Any interest in tackling the radiative heat loss of a 33C person in a 22C room?

I think it's clearer to deal with some example problem in sorting things out as we've done so far.
22-08-2019 15:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote: Well all I can do is tell you I don't know.

... and you are lying.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-08-2019 19:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Happy with this pointless exercise?


Thank you!!! Not pointless at all.
It is a thousand times easier for me to understand what you mean working through a problem:

So you used 22C/295K was the temp of the room, the person was 33C/306K but it doesn't matter I followed your math:
5.6704*.00000001*0.97*7573350625*2= -833.11 watts

So would your calculation for the human having 1.5m^2 of skin and being 33C be a loss of:
5.6704*.00000001*0.97*8767700496*1.5= -723.37 watts ?

Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 19:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So let's move on to something else until you are ready to discuss this.


Well all I can do is tell you I don't know. I am very confused that you think you've asked anything that would inspire my deliberate evasion. Ask any time I'll do my best.


He already did. You even reposted his question. He asked you to answer it again.

See post 4292.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2019 19:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Into the Night wrote:He already did. You even reposted his question. He asked you to answer it again.

See post 4292.


tmiddles is not interested in any discussion. He is DESPERATE for one thing and one thing only. He absolutely needs for us to be "wrong" about something ... anything ... just that we are wrong. He's like a battered army desperate for a victory, any victory.

Notice:

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


He did not write "let's resolve this point so we can continue the discussion" but rather he wants for us to tip our king so we can reset the board and play again, with him finally getting rid of the goose egg in his score.

I'm going to propose something to tmiddles:

Black is white.
Night is day.
Thomas Jefferson was a communist.
The Raiders are poised to win the Superbowl.

... ooops! Did I write those statements above. Man was I wrong. IBinError. My bad.


Are we good now? I publicly admit that I was wrong.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-08-2019 22:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
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]

.


Thank you for the help finding that ITN.
IBdaMann I Don't blame you for thinking I would/could hide from an issue as that's par for the course with the "global warming" topic at large.

I thought I had clearly responded to the above question but let me be more thorough now.

What you are asking and what I understand:
Science is not based on consensus or authority true. Its science if it is a testable theory that has not been proven wrong. So if it's not testable it's less than / other than science. Also if it's been proven wrong it is not.

Your question hinges on first accepting/understanding the premiss " one unambiguous model while also adhereing to another unambiguous model. One must be discarded." the two models being mutually exclusive / in conflict.

I thought I'd clearly responded that I needed help clarifying that premiss. What are the two models (Is one the Stefan-Boltzmann equation or the 2nd law, the other net heat?)? And what is the conflict?

So my basic understanding is your asking:
"What do we do with this problem I hope you know science is not by consensus"
And I'm asking "help me understand what the conflict is first"

I would certainly agree science/truth is not proven by consensus .

Was that coherent I hope?
22-08-2019 23:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote: the two models being mutually exclusive / in conflict.

I had spent an inordinate amount of time explaining to you the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

[Model A] Radiance (i.e. Power/Area) = Emissivity * Boltzmann * Absolute_Temperature^4

Quite suddenly, you claimed that you were unable to locate the Stefan-Boltzmann law anywhere on the internet, and that all you could find was this strange convolution:

[Model B] Radiance (i.e. Power/Area) = Emissivity * Boltzmann * (Higher_Absolute_Temperature^4 - Lower_Absolute_Temperature^4)

Notice that they are specifically different. Nature cannot adhere to both. For any given situation, the two models will predict different radiance values. At any given time, a given black body can only have one radiance. At least one of these models is incorrect. Maybe both are incorrect, but we know that at least one is.

Also, notice how I spell out the terms above. It is rarely helpful to spray the screen with symbols. If you don't understand your model well enough to spell them out so that everybody can participate instead of automatically being confused then you should probably research your model a little more until you understand it sufficiently. Just a recommendation.

So, you and I are at the point that we realize one of these models must be discarded. Can you think of anything we can do to eliminate one without relying on anyone's opinion? What if this were a logic puzzle for your consideration, i.e. you have two incompatible science models and you must determine which one is FALSE. Do you have any ideas how you could solve it?

I have some ideas on what we can do ... but you should already know what those are. Perhaps you have some better ideas. What are your thoughts?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-08-2019 23:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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]

.


Thank you for the help finding that ITN.

I normally do not help those with such short memories or those who deny what they said. Consider yourself lucky.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann I Don't blame you for thinking I would/could hide from an issue as that's par for the course with the "global warming" topic at large.

That it is.
tmiddles wrote:
I thought I had clearly responded to the above question but let me be more thorough now.

You never did. You never even attempted it.
tmiddles wrote:
What you are asking and what I understand:
Science is not based on consensus or authority true. Its science if it is a testable theory that has not been proven wrong. So if it's not testable it's less than / other than science. Also if it's been proven wrong it is not.

This you have correct.
tmiddles wrote:
Your question hinges on first accepting/understanding the premiss " one unambiguous model while also adhereing to another unambiguous model. One must be discarded." the two models being mutually exclusive / in conflict.

This premise is also part of science. Science may have no two conflicting theories. One or both MUST be falsified, for one theory attempts to falsify the other simply by existing.
tmiddles wrote:
I thought I'd clearly responded that I needed help clarifying that premiss.

That is one premise in science. It is called the 'external consistency check'. The other is the 'internal consistency check'. No theory can be based on a fallacy. All theories MUST form valid arguments.
tmiddles wrote:
What are the two models (Is one the Stefan-Boltzmann equation or the 2nd law, the other net heat?)?

There is no 'net heat'. There is only heat, or there is not. Heat only flows from hot to cold. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The equation that you are using conflicts with:
* The Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is only one body.
* Kirchoff's law. There is only one body no matter how many pieces you have.
* 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat never flows from cold to hot. Not by conduction, not by convection, and not by radiance.
* Fourier's conduction law. Heat can flow by conduction as well as by radiance or convection.

tmiddles wrote:
And what is the conflict?

That is the conflict. Your equation conflicts with each of these laws as explained.
tmiddles wrote:
So my basic understanding is your asking:
"What do we do with this problem I hope you know science is not by consensus"
And I'm asking "help me understand what the conflict is first"

That is the conflict. I just described them.
tmiddles wrote:
I would certainly agree science/truth is not proven by consensus .

You are evading the question he is asking. You are only acknowledging part of it.
tmiddles wrote:
Was that coherent I hope?

For the part you addressed. You still have not answered his question.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 04:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: the two models being mutually exclusive / in conflict.

... the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
[Model A] Radiance (i.e. Power/Area) = Emissivity * Boltzmann * Absolute_Temperature^4
...you claimed that you were unable to locate ...all you could find was...:
[Model B] Radiance (i.e. Power/Area) = Emissivity * Boltzmann * (Higher_Absolute_Temperature^4 - Lower_Absolute_Temperature^4)
Notice that they are specifically different. Nature cannot adhere to both...


I see I miscommunicated. The two equations are not solving for the same thing. One is solving for emittance and the second is solving for the NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE. One of the references, hyperphysics, had P on the left for both with no clarification.

This text does a much better job of making a distinction:
BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM Textbook

P(out)=σeA*To^4 (the radiance out To as in Temperature for out)

P(in)=σeA*Tenv^4 (the radiance being absorbed from the environment)

P(net)=σeA*(Tenv^4-To^4) (the NET gain or loss between the two)

So I was thinking you were saying that Stefan-Boltzman was incompatible with the notion that a hotter object could absorb radiance from a cooler one. The P(out), P(in) and P(net) use of the Stefan-Boltzman equation of course accepts that it can.

The NET radiation gain or loss does not change the TOTAL radiance of the object. You would get the same answer for both equations only if you had an environment with no radiance at all (not possible as the radiance of the deepest part of space is still 2.7K

So the real discussion now is about "net" thermal transfer through radiance would you agree?
Edited on 23-08-2019 04:58
23-08-2019 04:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I thought I had clearly responded to the above question but let me be more thorough now.

You never did. You never even attempted it.

It was here:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The issue before you is that you have been presented two equations...they are not compatible.

They are compatible....

We had a back an forth about it, I responded directly.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Science is...

This you have correct.

I kind of want a badge for having passed the "Science is" ITN test!

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'net heat'.....
* The Stefan-Boltzmann law. ....
* Kirchoff's law. ....
* 2nd law of thermodynamics.....
* Fourier's conduction law. ....


Now this get's the heart of the matter! We should proceed with exploring this conflict yes?
23-08-2019 05:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: the two models being mutually exclusive / in conflict.

... the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
[Model A] Radiance (i.e. Power/Area) = Emissivity * Boltzmann * Absolute_Temperature^4
...you claimed that you were unable to locate ...all you could find was...:
[Model B] Radiance (i.e. Power/Area) = Emissivity * Boltzmann * (Higher_Absolute_Temperature^4 - Lower_Absolute_Temperature^4)
Notice that they are specifically different. Nature cannot adhere to both...


I see I miscommunicated. The two equations are not solving for the same thing. One is solving for emittance and the second is solving for the NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE. One of the references, hyperphysics, had P on the left for both with no clarification.

This text does a much better job of making a distinction:
BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM Textbook

P(out)=σeA*To^4 (the radiance out To as in Temperature for out)

P(in)=σeA*Tenv^4 (the radiance being absorbed from the environment)

P(net)=σeA*(Tenv^4-To^4) (the NET gain or loss between the two)

So I was thinking you were saying that Stefan-Boltzman was incompatible with the notion that a hotter object could absorb radiance from a cooler one. The P(out), P(in) and P(net) use of the Stefan-Boltzman equation of course accepts that it can.

The NET radiation gain or loss does not change the TOTAL radiance of the object. You would get the same answer for both equations only if you had an environment with no radiance at all (not possible as the radiance of the deepest part of space is still 2.7K

So the real discussion now is about "net" thermal transfer through radiance would you agree?


It is not possible for a cooler object to warm a warmer object. There is no 'net heat flow'.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 05:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I thought I had clearly responded to the above question but let me be more thorough now.

You never did. You never even attempted it.

It was here:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The issue before you is that you have been presented two equations...they are not compatible.

They are compatible....

We had a back an forth about it, I responded directly.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Science is...

This you have correct.

I kind of want a badge for having passed the "Science is" ITN test!

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'net heat'.....
* The Stefan-Boltzmann law. ....
* Kirchoff's law. ....
* 2nd law of thermodynamics.....
* Fourier's conduction law. ....


Now this get's the heart of the matter! We should proceed with exploring this conflict yes?

Already done.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 06:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...would your calculation for the human having 1.5m^2 of skin and being 33C be a loss of:
5.6704*.00000001*0.97*8767700496*1.5= -723.37 watts ?

Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.


So in the problem to be solved with a person, 33C / 91F, in a dark room that is cooler than they are 22C / 72F, the only source of thermal energy available to maintain body temperature would be internal? Just chemical from the digestion of food?

Since the walls being cooler cannot radiate to the person and have that radiance absorbed, and since conduction can be ignored since it's not possible for the cooler air in the room to warm the person correct?

And you would calculate 723 watts radiant heat?

All that sound right?
Edited on 23-08-2019 07:24
23-08-2019 06:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:I see I miscommunicated.

Nope. You completely ignored what I wrote. I was very clear with you about allowing yourself to be manipulated by "net flow" arguments.

This is what I wrote, and what you ignored:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So I'm crystal clear on the NET flow of thermal energy going from the hotter to the cooler in either conduction or radiance.

Don't do this. You obviously did some research on one or more fanatical Marxist warmizombie websites. You can't say that I didn't warn you to stay away from them. This is a standard warmizombie manipulation.

This is what's going on. You found an article or site that sets gullible victims up to regurgitate a "net flow" argument. Global Warming dogma violates the laws of thermodynamics and warmizombies are forever pulling out their hair and gnashing their teeth at their inability to get around physics.

So the article/site assures the victim that Global Warming doesn't actually violate thermodynamics ... that it's perfectly OK for thermal energy from cooler objects to flow into warmer objects as long as the "net flow" is from the warmer to the cooler.

The gullible victim is then reassured that objections to Global Warming on the basis of thermodynamics violations are totally without merit because Global Warming is accomplished with the portion of the thermal energy that is allowed to violate thermodynamics, and that there is enough other thermal energy to ensure there is a "net flow" adhering to thermodynamics.


You continue to presume that I will somehow buy a "net flow" argument if you repeat it enough.

tmiddles wrote: The two equations are not solving for the same thing. One is solving for emittance and the second is solving for the NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE.

So you knew all this time that it was wrong and why. Why did you waste the time and effort?


tmiddles wrote: The NET radiation gain or loss does not change the TOTAL radiance of the object.

Do you think that I will somehow buy your claim that SOME of the thermal energy is allowed to violate the laws of thermodynamics?

Once again, you should only see "flow" of energy. If you see "net flow" then you are being manipulated. You have to realize that it won't work on me. The moment I read the words "net flow" I roll my eyes and I stop reading.

tmiddles wrote: You would get the same answer for both equations only if you had an environment with no radiance at all (not possible as the radiance of the deepest part of space is still 2.7K

Is this a true statement or is it completely absurd? Should I commend you for writing this or should I mock you? If you had to place a $75,000 wager in Vegas, on one of those options, which one would you choose?

tmiddles wrote:So the real discussion now is about "net" thermal transfer through radiance would you agree?

Not for a second.

So let's go back to your statement:

tmiddles wrote:I see I miscommunicated.

Actually, what you did was EVADE my question. You still haven't answered it. I don't care what you personally feel about the two equations, we have two incompatible equations and I want your thoughts on how we can show one of them to be false.

What are your thoughts?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-08-2019 07:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
This is what I wrote, and what you ignored:
You obviously did some research on one or more fanatical Marxist warmizombie websites.
Not actually true but it doesn't matter fake science can be proven wrong

IBdaMann wrote:You continue to presume that I will somehow buy a "net flow" argument
Opposite, I was identifying THIS as where you don't agree AT ALL!

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The two equations are not solving for the same thing....
So you knew all this time that it was wrong....?
I was clear I was looking for net radiance. You don't believe in it, I do.

IBdaMann wrote: Do you think that I will somehow buy your claim that SOME of the thermal energy is allowed to violate the laws of thermodynamics?
AGAIN, we have successfully honed in on a great mutually exclusive conflict. From a debating point of view this is pay dirt! Let's hash it out!

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: deepest part of space is still 2.7K
Is this a true statement or is it completely absurd?
2.7 Kelvin is the background radiance of the stars.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So the real discussion now is about "net" ...
Not for a second.
OK now you lost me, isn't that where you are like "Not so fast buddy" isn't that the current conflict/crux of disagreement?

IBdaMann wrote: we have two incompatible equations and I want your thoughts on how we can show one of them to be false.
You CLAIM they are incompatible. How are they? Where does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation result in a zero in the denominator or anything else if absorption of radiant energy from a cooler object is possible?

That is THE issue that cannot be assumed here. You believe absorption of radiant energy from a cooler body by a warmer one is impossible correct?

And that's not even a conflict with the Stefan-Boltzman equation. You might branch out and bring in the 2nd law of thermodynamics or some interpretation of Planck but Stefan-Boltzman is very simple: temp = radiance OUT, the emmission, doesn't even get into absorption right?
Edited on 23-08-2019 07:23
23-08-2019 09:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...would your calculation for the human having 1.5m^2 of skin and being 33C be a loss of:
5.6704*.00000001*0.97*8767700496*1.5= -723.37 watts ?

Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.


So in the problem to be solved with a person, 33C / 91F, in a dark room that is cooler than they are 22C / 72F, the only source of thermal energy available to maintain body temperature would be internal? Just chemical from the digestion of food?

Since the walls being cooler cannot radiate to the person and have that radiance absorbed, and since conduction can be ignored since it's not possible for the cooler air in the room to warm the person correct?

And you would calculate 723 watts radiant heat?

All that sound right?


No, all that is undefined.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 09:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
This is what I wrote, and what you ignored:
You obviously did some research on one or more fanatical Marxist warmizombie websites.
Not actually true but it doesn't matter fake science can be proven wrong

IBdaMann wrote:You continue to presume that I will somehow buy a "net flow" argument
Opposite, I was identifying THIS as where you don't agree AT ALL!

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The two equations are not solving for the same thing....
So you knew all this time that it was wrong....?
I was clear I was looking for net radiance. You don't believe in it, I do.

IBdaMann wrote: Do you think that I will somehow buy your claim that SOME of the thermal energy is allowed to violate the laws of thermodynamics?
AGAIN, we have successfully honed in on a great mutually exclusive conflict. From a debating point of view this is pay dirt! Let's hash it out!

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: deepest part of space is still 2.7K
Is this a true statement or is it completely absurd?
2.7 Kelvin is the background radiance of the stars.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So the real discussion now is about "net" ...
Not for a second.
OK now you lost me, isn't that where you are like "Not so fast buddy" isn't that the current conflict/crux of disagreement?

IBdaMann wrote: we have two incompatible equations and I want your thoughts on how we can show one of them to be false.
You CLAIM they are incompatible. How are they? Where does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation result in a zero in the denominator or anything else if absorption of radiant energy from a cooler object is possible?

That is THE issue that cannot be assumed here. You believe absorption of radiant energy from a cooler body by a warmer one is impossible correct?

And that's not even a conflict with the Stefan-Boltzman equation. You might branch out and bring in the 2nd law of thermodynamics or some interpretation of Planck but Stefan-Boltzman is very simple: temp = radiance OUT, the emmission, doesn't even get into absorption right?

I have already explained the conflicts. So has IBdaMann. You know, we DO get tired of repeating ourselves to forgetful people like you.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 10:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Into the Night wrote:
I have already explained the conflicts.


I propose you dare to put your claim there are conflicts to the test.

I doesn't matter how certain it seems if you're wrong then experiments can reveal it.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And you would calculate 723 watts radiant heat?
All that sound right?

No, all that is undefined.


So you're unable to calculate the thermodynamics of a person in a room?

I'm well aware you and IBdaMann are actually intelligent and neither of you can come up with a plausible way of reconciling disbelief in net radiance and a simple person in a room not dying of hypothermia.

So I'm not surprised you're backing out.
Edited on 23-08-2019 10:54
23-08-2019 15:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:Not actually true but it doesn't matter fake science can be proven wrong

Don't stop there. Continue. How do we do that?

tmiddles wrote: I was clear I was looking for net radiance. You don't believe in it, I do.

It becomes the same fallacy, i.e. you seek to legitimize the violation of thermodynamics. Your vehicle in this case is treating radiance as conduction. This allows you to modify downwards the radiance of a body by subtracting the temperature of something else from the temperature of the body.

This is how you plan to present "greenhouse gases." You intend to claim that the earth's temperature increases but that the "greenhouse gases" subtract from the temperature value in computing the radiance, thus realizing a reduced "net" radiance from a corresponding increase in temperature.

Ergo, your ultimate objective is to dismantle Stefan-Boltzmann. I get it. With Stefan-Boltzmann out of the way, you can return to arguing that greenhouse gases reduce earth's "net" radiance thus increasing earth's temperature ... but it won't work because your equation is pure fabrication and is not science. The attempt to treat black body radiation as conduction will get your model summarily dismissed with a hearty laugh. While Stefan-Boltzmann still stands, your argument takes an immediate bullet to the head.


tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: deepest part of space is still 2.7K

Is this a true statement or is it completely absurd?
2.7 Kelvin is the background radiance of the stars.

The correct answer is that both of your statements are absurd and you should be mocked for having regurgitated them. I know, I know, you read them on the internet so they must be the gospel truth.

Only matter has temperature.
No vacuum has temperature.
No electromagnetic energy has temperature.
You should have your common sense credentials pulled.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: we have two incompatible equations and I want your thoughts on how we can show one of them to be false.
You CLAIM they are incompatible.

Just answer the question. Just assume they are. Consider it a puzzle. Stop EVADING the question.

How can you go about showing ANY model is false without resorting to any person's opinion?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-08-2019 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already explained the conflicts.


I propose you dare to put your claim there are conflicts to the test.

I doesn't matter how certain it seems if you're wrong then experiments can reveal it.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And you would calculate 723 watts radiant heat?
All that sound right?

No, all that is undefined.


So you're unable to calculate the thermodynamics of a person in a room?

No. There are too many undefined values.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm well aware you and IBdaMann are actually intelligent and neither of you can come up with a plausible way of reconciling disbelief in net radiance and a simple person in a room not dying of hypothermia.

There is no 'net radiance' either. There is no 'net heat'.
tmiddles wrote:
So I'm not surprised you're backing out.

Backing out of what? You I gave you the amount of light the man was emitting using your randU numbers, which is also a randU answer. Now you want me to make up more randU numbers to satisfy an equation for absorption, conduction, and emission??


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 19:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote: So I'm not surprised you're backing out.

You are wandering into Subduction Zone territory. He was an intellectual coward and complete loser who alternated between refusing to answer any questions and accusing me of "running away."

The only way to deal with a totally dishonest imbecile like that is to just let him post and then roast him from top to bottom. I would rather discuss but I can't force any discussion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-08-2019 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So I'm not surprised you're backing out.

You are wandering into Subduction Zone territory. He was an intellectual coward and complete loser who alternated between refusing to answer any questions and accusing me of "running away."

The only way to deal with a totally dishonest imbecile like that is to just let him post and then roast him from top to bottom. I would rather discuss but I can't force any discussion.


.


Wow. THAT sure brings up some memories! I haven't heard from Subduction Zone in quite awhile now. Guess he ran away!


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2019 00:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Not actually true but it doesn't matter fake science can be proven wrong

Don't stop there. Continue. How do we do that?


As Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

So if we do have as you claim, a mutually exclusive conflict between two theories, then put them head to head.

Answer this: "How does an unclothed person in a 22C room not freeze to death?"

Good luck if you don't believe in net radiation.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I was clear I was looking for net radiance. You don't believe in it, I do.

It becomes the same fallacy....it allows you to modify downwards the radiance of a body by subtracting the temperature of something else from the temperature of the body.


Woah!!! No No No. NET Radiance Heat Transfer simply means radiance can be absorbed. The emitted radiance isn't reduced and don't pretend anyone is saying it is.

It's like the income and expenses for a business. Just because expenses were $1000 it doesn't mean income wasn't $1200, hey our Net was $200. Three different values there all very clearly defined.
NET RADIANCE TRANSFER is RADIANCE OUT - RADIANCE IN = NET RADIANT LOSS/GAIN

Just as a business is EXPENSES - INCOME = LOSS/PROFIT

IBdaMann wrote: your ultimate objective is to dismantle Stefan-Boltzmann.


Where does Stefan-Boltzmann claim the radiance from the walls of a room cannot be absorbed by a hotter person in the room?

IBdaMann wrote:your equation is pure fabrication and is not science.
Test it, go ahead, how does a person not freeze to death in a 22C/70F room?

And you may conclude they have to eat 14,000 calories, 6 Large Pizzas. Up to you how you want to solve it.

I already have.

IBdaMann wrote: we have two incompatible equations...Just assume they are. Consider it a puzzle. Stop EVADING the question.

OK
A hypothesis, in this case that two models are incompatible in some way, should be tested if possible.

So here's a test.
Calculating the radiance of a typical human in good health at 33C, standing in a room at 22C, the two formula's can be put to the test.

If you think the heat loss through radiation only comes from the stefan-boltzman equation that does not include an ambient radiation the person would need to consume 14,000 calories a day just to survive and maintain body temperature in a 22C/70F room.

So the hypothesis that the stefan-boltzman equation alone calculates the radiative heat loss is debunked.

Of course the stefan-boltzman equation for radiance is just that and not claimed to be the equation for net radiative heat loss.

Now you have not been clear about why YOU consider the equations are in conflict. As I said don't see a conflict.

To really test a hypothesis you'd need to know hat it is.

But I do not want to evade your question to to be clear my understanding is this:
The question is what if there is a real conflict in the information presented. Assume there is even if you're confident (because you shouldn't assume).

My answer is to test the two alternatives with an experiment to see if you can get one to fail.
Edited on 24-08-2019 00:10
24-08-2019 00:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Into the Night wrote:
No. There are too many undefined values.
...
Backing out of what? You I gave you the amount of light the man was emitting
AND IBdaMann

So the person, who is a standard 33C/91F, is in a room that is 22C/70F.

If they have 1.5m2 of surface/skin, I calculated over 700 watts of radiance using Stefan-Boltzmann do you concur?

Does the person have any way of absorbing heat from the room?

Is the only source of thermal energy to maintain body heat internal/chemical/caloric?

How do they maintain body heat.

We are all people in rooms and know that maintaining body heat in a 22C/70F room is not particularly challenging.
24-08-2019 02:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote: So if we do have as you claim, a mutually exclusive conflict between two theories, then put them head to head.

Good. You're getting warmer.

How do you suggest we put them "head to head"?

tmiddles wrote:"How does an unclothed person in a 22C room not freeze to death?"

I enjoy a good puzzler as much as the next guy, which is why I wish you would think through your questions a little better.

Humans produce thermal energy. It's a metabolism thing.

Have you heard of the Polar Bear club?




tmiddles wrote:Good luck if you don't believe in net radiation.

No luck is required. I don't accept your non-science. You are going to show me just how wrong it is.


tmiddles wrote: Woah!!! No No No.

Yes Yes Yes.

You may be mathematically incompetent but I am not. I am perfectly capable of identifying a minus sign and of seeing that you are subtracting.

Just because you don't understand the model you are presenting doesn't mean that you get to claim that the math says something other than what it says.


tmiddles wrote: NET Radiance Heat Transfer simply means radiance can be absorbed.

Nope. You are dishonestly not expressing the full statement ...

(Full Statement): NET Radiance Heat Transfer simply means thermal energy can flow from a cooler body to a warmer body via radiance from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


tmiddles wrote:The emitted radiance isn't reduced and don't pretend anyone is saying it is.

Don't pretend that you are saying that emitted radiance isn't reduced. Your model includes (T1^4 - T2^4); that subtraction of T2^4 reduces the temperature component thereby reducing the calculated radiance. Let me know if you have any questions.

tmiddles wrote:Where does Stefan-Boltzmann claim the radiance from the walls of a room cannot be absorbed by a hotter person in the room?


Where in the larceny statute does it say that battery is illegal?


tmiddles wrote:So here's a test.
Calculating the radiance of a typical human in good health at 33C, standing in a room at 22C, the two formula's can be put to the test.


It sounds like you are suggesting that we get some data. I agree.

tmiddles wrote:If you think the heat loss through radiation only comes from the stefan-boltzman equation that does not include an ambient radiation the person would need to consume 14,000 calories a day just to survive and maintain body temperature in a 22C/70F room.

This is funny. It is you that is claiming that conduction never enters the picture while I have been telling you that you cannot just use thermal radiation alone to answer the question you posed.

The man in the room loses thermal energy via conduction and black body radiation both. Your word problem tries to calculate only black body radiation through non-science. It stands no chance at being correct.

tmiddles wrote:Now you have not been clear about why YOU consider the equations are in conflict. As I said don't see a conflict.

I already explained this. I put the two side by side. If you don't understand then the problem is on your end. Don't be implying that your incompetence is somehow my fault. I'm happy to explain whatever you need explaining but if you also need to remind you that you are the one with the cognitive impediment then I can do that as well.

What part of "nature cannot adhere to both" is giving you difficulty?

tmiddles wrote:My answer is to test the two alternatives with an experiment to see if you can get one to fail.

This is a very good answer; right on track.

All we need is to find one instance in nature in which the model does not hold.

So what's our first step?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-08-2019 02:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:If they have 1.5m2 of surface/skin, I calculated over 700 watts of radiance using Stefan-Boltzmann do you concur?

How were you able to calculate that without the emissivity value?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-08-2019 03:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
How do you suggest we put them "head to head"?

Test radiant emission alone as the whole story for radiant heat loss against net radiant heat loss where absorption by a cooler body is possible.

IBdaMann wrote:
Humans produce thermal energy. It's a metabolism thing.

Indeed! It is our only internal source of heat right? And it's not free we need to burn calories to produce it correct? 2000 ish and not 14,000 ish a day

IBdaMann wrote:
I am perfectly capable of identifying a minus sign and of seeing that you are subtracting.

You are pretending it's solving for radiance out. It is not. It is solving for net radiant transfer. It clearly uses radiance out, subtracts radiance in, and gets the difference.

IBdaMann wrote:
(Full Statement): NET Radiance Heat Transfer simply means thermal energy can flow from a cooler body to a warmer body via radiance from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Yes it does!!! Exactly. That is where the Head to Head is. My experiment with the person in the room proves that a world without NET radiance as you just described it is not the world we live in now (our respective lack of death by hypothermia being evidence to that effect).

IBdaMann wrote:
Don't pretend that you are saying that emitted radiance isn't reduced. Your model includes (T1^4 - T2^4); that subtraction of T2^4 reduces the temperature component thereby reducing the calculated radiance.

It's not solving for emitted radiance!! It's not and no one says it is. NET RADIANT TRANSFER. Just like Net Profit. Didn't like my business analogy?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So here's a test.
Calculating the radiance of a typical human in good health at 33C, standing in a room at 22C, the two formula's can be put to the test.

It sounds like you are suggesting that we get some data. I agree.

Data supplied! If you have a problem using Randu numbers for a typical human, their emessivity, then explain why.

I think we can agree there is a practical range and given the nature of this experiment the caclulation produce such wildly different answers, those variations are moot.

tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"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



IBdaMann wrote:The man in the room loses thermal energy via conduction and black body radiation both. Your word problem tries to calculate only black body radiation through non-science. It stands no chance at being correct.


Then calculate it properly if you don't like the "non-science".

Just answer this:
What is the loss by radiance?
Is there any heat gain other than that supplied by the digestion of food?

IBdaMann wrote:I put the two side by side.


Again the equations solve for different things. Just like Gross Profit and Net profit do for a business. You posted equations implying they solved for the same thing.

IBdaMann wrote:
So what's our first step?


Person in a room calculation. I've already done it and it is consistent with net radiant heat transfer being real and it debunks the notion that you only calculate radiant loss.

The only remaining possibilities are that the source of missing heat is unknown or that it's radiance from a cooler object to a hotter one.
25-08-2019 01:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:You are pretending it's solving for radiance out.

It is an equation for radiance out.

We have reached the end of the discussion for this topic.

WHAT: You have a bastardized equation that incorrectly computes radiance. You are opting to call it a "net flow" equation instead of correctly calling it a "bogus radiance formula."

HOW: You include a bogus additional temperature term which you subtract from the temperature term in Stefan-Boltzmann to produce a reduced radiance. Your bogus equation allows for increased temperatures to nonetheless produce reduced radiances ... a direct violation of the correct Stefan-Boltzmann. Additionally, the model's mechanism presumes thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

WHY: You are singularly focused on proving that Stefan-Boltzmann is false. This is the main thorn in the sides of warmizombies worldwide. Stefan-Boltzmann makes a mockery of their faith. It stands as a persistent, indelible and humiliating reminder that they were gullible and allowed themselves to be manipulated into believing a bunch of physics violations are "settled science." Now you have too much of your personal identity invested in this crap religion that you are poised to deny any and all science to salvage what you can of your ego.


Your intention to preach your WACKY religious dogma was evident when you arrived and has not changed. Even when you were pretending to be interested in learning science you routinely gave away your agenda by ignoring key points that did not help your cause (requiring them to be repeated multiple times), by ignoring key questions that you didn't like (requiring them to be asked multiple times) and always derailing lines of reasoning so you could steer the conversation to your scenarios and hypotheticals, all as a lead-in for your planned "net flow" dissertation.

I use the words "we have reached the end of the discussion" but you were never discussing ... although you were given every opportunity. You preached, and nothing more. You were thoroughly advised of the problems with the (all too common) "net flow" argument in the strongest and clearest terms but you insisted on preaching it in the strongest and clearest terms.

ERGO, what I wrote above is the full, complete and correct answer to this topic. I *WILL NOT* repeat this material any further. If you have any questions you are free to peruse all the posts and all the material that you ignored.

What I will do, however, is pick apart any of your posts in which you preach this topic. You are, of course, welcome to ignore such, just know that it's coming.


Is there any point in continuing the discussion concerning how you can show your "net flow" equation to be false or are you really not interested?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-08-2019 03:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:...You have a bastardized equation ...
What I will do, however, is pick apart any of your posts in which you preach this topic.

Pick apart this one.

Calling on ITN, IBdaMann and anyone and everyone to do the following and see if they can exclude radiance from the room being absorbed by the warmer body of the person:

tmiddles wrote:
Then calculate it [the net heat loss of a person 33C in a room 22C]properly if you don't like the "non-science".

Just answer this:
What is the loss by radiance?
Is there any heat gain other than that supplied by the digestion of food?

Use the right formulas and correct science.

My personality and if I have an agenda won't interfere with your calculation.
25-08-2019 03:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:Pick apart this one.

... followed by no argument but rather, a question.

tmiddles, pick this one apart:

* thermal energy cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body.


I think we're done.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-08-2019 03:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
* thermal energy cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body.


Are you claiming radiance from the walls of the room is not absorbed by the warmer person?

IBdaMann wrote:
I think we're done.
.


Well it's not your topic or mine.

Anyone else want to try? IBdaMann has given up it would seem.
Edited on 25-08-2019 03:47
25-08-2019 04:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:Are you claiming radiance from the walls of the room is not absorbed by the warmer person?

You can take me out of this. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that thermal energy cannot flow from the cooler walls to the warmer person.

I have nothing to do with it. You will not offend me by picking apart the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Have at it.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I think we're done..

Well it's not your topic or mine.

... but you and I are the "we." Ask me how I know.

tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann has given up it would seem.

Are you still claiming that your stupid "net flow" argument is somehow me running away?

From now on, I'll just caveot your assertions with "this is coming from the guy that believes cooler walls can heat a warmer person."

Carry on.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-08-2019 04:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:

From now on, I'll just caveot your assertions with "this is coming from the guy that believes cooler walls can heat a warmer person."

Carry on.

.


Ok that may make it on my signature!:
" the guy that believes cooler walls can heat a warmer person"

But of course it'd be:

" the guy that believes radiance from cooler walls canbe absorbed by a warmer person"


So question for you:
If the air and walls are cooler can the person gain any energy from either?
Edited on 25-08-2019 04:21
25-08-2019 04:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:
So question for you:
If the air and walls are cooler can the person gain any energy from either?

Why do you care what I say?

Just go with what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.

Oh, that's right. Your agenda is to destroy the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nevermind. My bad.


... anyway, yes, the 2nd law of sacrilege states that the cooler walls and the cooler air only acquire thermal energy from the warmer body and do not increase the temperature of the warmer person.
.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-08-2019 09:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...can the person gain any energy from either?

the 2nd law ,,,cooler walls and the cooler air ...do not increase the temperature of the warmer person.
.


I am saying that radiance from the cooler walls is being absorbed by the warmer person.

The most important fact to establish first is:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation for radiance IS a law.
P(out)=σeA*To^4
Qt=σeAT^4
RAD = T^4 * emiss * bolt * area

Writing variation aside it is always that the radiance on an object is equal to:
the Boltzmann constant,
times the area of the object,
times it's emissivity,
times the temperature to the 4th.

There's no way around this. You can't change the radiance without also changing at least one of the: area, emissivity, temperature

Now since an adult human can be fairly given values in the "normal range" then a person within the normal range could have 1.5 meters of skin, a temperature of 91F/33C/306K, and a emissivity of 0.97.

The calculation gives us:
Qt=σeAT^4
Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−723J/s=−723W

So a person as described has 723watts of radiance.
Which is a 723watt loss of energy due to radiance.
Edited on 25-08-2019 10:55
Page 10 of 17<<<89101112>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy1320-09-2019 01:50
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
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
▲ 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