Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 11 of 19<<<910111213>>>
25-08-2019 16:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:I am saying that radiance from the cooler walls is being absorbed by the warmer person.

ERGO you are asserting that radiance from the cooler walls increases the temperature of the warmer man (that's what "absorption" means).

tmiddles wrote: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

Your math is wrong.

Radiance is not P(out).
Radiance = P(out)/Area

ERGO, your statements should read:

P(out)/A =σe*T^4
RAD = bolt * emiss * T^4

tmiddles wrote:Now since an adult human can be fairly given values in ...

So pick an actual emissivity value over all wavelengths, not an absorptivity over a particular band.

Why not go with human Emissivity = 0.7 and wall Emissivity = 0.8 ?



.


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
26-08-2019 01:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:radiance from the cooler walls is being absorbed by the warmer person

ERGO you are asserting that radiance from the cooler walls increases the temperature ...

No I'm not I'm proving that it's net transfer. Absorption means a single molecule has it's energy increased, temperature is the internal energy of a whole system. It's the average. In fact the same molecule could emitt, absrob, emitt, absorb.

How else would themodynamic equilibrium play out?

IBdaMann wrote:
Radiance = P(out)/Area

Thanks! I was wondering why area was missing from the radiance equations. I stand corrected.

IBdaMann wrote:
Why not go with human Emissivity = 0.7 and wall Emissivity = 0.8 ?

Why does the emissivity of the wall matter?

But OK for the person having 0.7 (which would possibly be with some kind of clothing on. I did supply the source for human emissivity here)

Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.7)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−522J/s=−522 watts

Take your pick. Same result regardless: They lose too much energy if they aren't absorbing any.
Edited on 26-08-2019 01:07
26-08-2019 01:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:No I'm not I'm proving that it's net transfer.

As long as you are wedging that word "net" in there you are saying that SOME is violating the laws of thermodynamics.

ERGO, you are wrong.

tmiddles wrote: Absorption means a single molecule has it's energy increased, temperature is the internal energy of a whole system. It's the average. In fact the same molecule could emitt, absrob, emitt, absorb.

... like I said, you insist that SOME energy violates the laws f thermodynamics.

Good luck with that.

tmiddles wrote: How else would themodynamic equilibrium play out?

... by adhering completely to the laws of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Why not go with human Emissivity = 0.7 and wall Emissivity = 0.8 ?

Why does the emissivity of the wall matter?

You are claiming that its radiance is being absorbed by the man. You need the wall's emissivity to compute the wall's radiance because, as you said, Stefan-Boltzmann is a law.

tmiddles wrote: I did supply the source for human emissivity

... and you ignored advisories of how it is wrong. You ignored previous posts that explained how to recognize erroneous crap. I don't know what else to say.

.


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
26-08-2019 03:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:I don't know what else to say.

Solve the problem the right way. Nothing is stopping you.

A person in a room. Do the calculations of heat loss by radiance and then explain how they maintain body heat.

It's a very simple problem and there can't be excuses claiming data is missing.
26-08-2019 03:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I don't know what else to say.

Solve the problem the right way. Nothing is stopping you.

Except my laziness. I'm not particularly interested in solving for the black body emission power and the conduction power ... just to do some arithmetic.

It's your problem. If it's not important enough to you to do it correctly then what makes you think I somehow am itching to knock it out. I don't mind helping you solve a problem but I'm not here to do your homework.

Are you saying that you chose to waste time with an example you don't wish to solve?

.


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
26-08-2019 03:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Are you saying that you chose to waste time with an example you don't wish to solve?

I already solved it:
Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−723J/s=−723W

That's the emittence by radiance. I stand by that.

Are you claiming I calculated it wrong?
Edited on 26-08-2019 03:20
26-08-2019 03:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:I already solved it:
Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−723J/s=−723W

That's the emittence by radiance. I stand by that.

Are you claiming I calculated it wrong?

I don't know. How did you get the 306K figure?


.


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
26-08-2019 03:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:I don't know. How did you get the 306K figure

tmiddles wrote:...an adult human can be fairly given values in the "normal range" ...a temperature of 91F/33C/306K,
26-08-2019 03:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I don't know. How did you get the 306K figure

tmiddles wrote:...an adult human can be fairly given values in the "normal range" ...a temperature of 91F/33C/306K,

Sure, but that means you didn't follow your bogus equation. You didn't subtract T2^4 from T1^4.

Have you abandoned your bogus equation?

.


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
26-08-2019 04:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:=
Have you abandoned your bogus equation?

I want to know your answer for the thermodynamics for the person.

So we agree on the radiance/emittance energy loss?

That "bogus equation" does not solve for emittance but for NET energy loss by radiance in and out. Since you don't believe in that I don't expect it to be a part of your calculation. But I never used it to solve for emittance and never would since that's not what it solves for.

tmiddles wrote:
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)
26-08-2019 14:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:=
Have you abandoned your bogus equation?

I want to know your answer for the thermodynamics for the person.

Aaaahh, cowardly evasion. Let's review your attempted sleight of hand.

Step 1. You reject the Stefan-Boltzmann law because it states, among other things, that temperature and radiance move in the same direction, killing Global Warming dogma.

Step 2. You present a bogus formula that has no basis in nature that allows a reduction in radiance despite an increase in temperature, exactly what Global Warming dogma demands.

Step 3. You strangely announce that your bogus formula is all you can find on the internet whereas the so-called "Stefan-Boltzmann law" is a no-show.

Step 4. To demonstrate the veracity of your bogus formula, you proudly present a word problem and invite everyone to solve it.

Step 5. You then pass the veil over your hand as you solve the problem with the Stefan-Boltzmann law and defy others to claim you miscalculated.

Unfortunately, someone in the audience saw you discard the bogus formula through a trap door and you are left telling everyone that there's nothing to see here.

As far as I am concerned, you are simply enamored with "net flow" prayers to Climate because they give you a warm, tingly sensation and hope that one day Stefan-Boltzmann can be defeated.

Until then, however, I recommend learning enough about the topic that you can write your own posts without having to copy-paste erroneous regurgitation from warmizombie sites.

.


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
26-08-2019 14:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
As far as I am concerned, you are simply enamored with "net flow"
.


Bottom line: You can't solve the problem following your own rules.

If you could you would.

And I notice ITN is reeeally quiet.


But go ahead. Make more excuses.
26-08-2019 17:25
Aliaka
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hi guys, this is Ali
I was searching online for works that we can do in order to stop or at least slow down the global warming, and found this video which I hope will help all of you.
You can share it if you like, I don't mind

https://dausel.co/r4suvx
https://dausel.co/r4suvx
26-08-2019 17:54
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1512)
Aliaka wrote:
Hi guys, this is Ali
I was searching online for works that we can do in order to stop or at least slow down the global warming, and found this video which I hope will help all of you.
You can share it if you like, I don't mind

https://dausel.co/r4suvx
https://dausel.co/r4suvx


We are part of nature, we don't control it. We can only deal with what nature throws at us, and hope we are strong enough to survive. I don't personally see any warming pattern. Certainly CO2, about 0.04% of the atmosphere isn't sufficient to be the cause of any such thing. But, if you are buying all the hype and hysteria, the time, money and resources, would be better spent on minimizing the impact, of the prophesied changes, and catastrophes.

I like a warm climate, hate snow and ice. I'm a good swimmer, enjoy the water. Survived a couple dozen severe weather events, no problem. Plants do really well with higher levels of CO2. If the climate is changing, if for a better world, not the scary mad scientist stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zSlhWk3-w

I'm not familiar with your website link, will wait to see if anyone else takes that chance...
26-08-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
As far as I am concerned, you are simply enamored with "net flow"
.


Bottom line: You can't solve the problem following your own rules.

If you could you would.

And I notice ITN is reeeally quiet.


But go ahead. Make more excuses.

The problem as you have stated it is unspecified. There is nothing to solve.
There is no 'net flow' of heat or radiance.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
Aliaka wrote:
Hi guys, this is Ali
I was searching online for works that we can do in order to stop or at least slow down the global warming, and found this video which I hope will help all of you.
You can share it if you like, I don't mind

https://dausel.co/r4suvx
https://dausel.co/r4suvx


Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Aliaka wrote: I was searching online for works that we can do in order to stop or at least slow down the global warming,

The only way to do that is to deploy a Tox Uthat, a quantum phase inhibitor capable of halting all nuclear fusion within a star.

There are problems with this approach, notably that one does not exist ... yet. The Tox Uthat is a 27th century device discussed in Captain's Holiday (an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation) so the program's writers have a better idea of how that project is coming along.


.


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
26-08-2019 20:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
As far as I am concerned, you are simply enamored with "net flow"
.


Bottom line: You can't solve the problem following your own rules.

If you could you would.

And I notice ITN is reeeally quiet.


But go ahead. Make more excuses.


Hey Aliaka I'll bet you're an account IBdaMann set up to try to cover over his shame in this topic.

Not gonna work sorry bub.

If you can't explain the heat loss of a person in a room your goose is cooked.
Edited on 26-08-2019 20:35
26-08-2019 20:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
The problem as you have stated it is unspecified. There is nothing to solve.


Here you go again:

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.
26-08-2019 22:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles mindlessly copy-pasted without bothering to notice the glaring semantic issues of:
"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.

Hint: What do you need if you use the word "transfer"?

Hint: What do you not have if you are simply talking about emission?

Hint: What wavelengths pertain to emissivity?

Hint: If you are going to claim the person absorbs energy from the environment, what do you need to address?


.


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
26-08-2019 23:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hint: ....Hint: ....Hint: ....Hint:


Hint: A person in a room is you and me. You cannot figure out the thermodynamics because you'd have to admit you've always been wrong.

IBdaMann and ITN simply explain how a person in a room radiates as per Stefan-Boltzmann and does not freeze to death.

That's your question.

You are in a hopeless pickle of your own making.
26-08-2019 23:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:You cannot figure out the thermodynamics because you'd have to admit you've always been wrong.

Wrong about what? I don't remember making any claim(s).

tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann and ITN simply explain how a person in a room radiates as per Stefan-Boltzmann and does not freeze to death.


@the judge: Objection, your honor! Asked and answered.

Judge: Sustained ... tmiddles, move on.


.


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
27-08-2019 00:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
....Asked and answered.
.


You get to say that when you've had an answer.

So come on Mr. Scientist.

If an average human radiates over 700 watts, which works out about 14,000 calories, or 6 large pizzas, of energy, how on Earth are we all not hypotheric?

I have given my answer (Well agreed with the college text book).
BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM Textbook

You have put so much energy into dodging.

Paragraphs about my motives and trickery. Just answer it.

Do it the right way.
27-08-2019 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
As far as I am concerned, you are simply enamored with "net flow"
.


Bottom line: You can't solve the problem following your own rules.

If you could you would.

And I notice ITN is reeeally quiet.


But go ahead. Make more excuses.


Hey Aliaka I'll bet you're an account IBdaMann set up to try to cover over his shame in this topic.

Not gonna work sorry bub.

If you can't explain the heat loss of a person in a room your goose is cooked.


What shame? He explained it to you quite clearly. The goose that's cooking is the one in his oven (if he has one there).

YALSA


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 01:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The problem as you have stated it is unspecified. There is nothing to solve.


Here you go again:

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.


Since we are talking about body temperatures, I will use Fahrenheit, since it is more suited to the task.

Restated by conversion, this results in a room at 71.6 degF and the person at 91.4deg F.

The person will primarily heat the room by conduction (assuming normal air pressure and humidity), not by radiance. In the process his skin temperature is cooled to that of room temperature. See Fourier's law of conduction, already given to you.

A core body temperature of 91.4 deg F is serious and must be dealt with immediately. He is already going into a stupor. I recommend blankets or a warm (not hot) bath.

Is there some reason our test subject is suffering from hypothermia in a 70 deg F room?


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 01:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hint: ....Hint: ....Hint: ....Hint:


Hint: A person in a room is you and me. You cannot figure out the thermodynamics because you'd have to admit you've always been wrong.

He has already shown you all the equations involved and how to use them. Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann and ITN simply explain how a person in a room radiates as per Stefan-Boltzmann and does not freeze to death.

Our test subject IS freezing to death (for some unknown reason). The temperatures you gave for his body temperature is too low. He is suffering from hypothermia.
tmiddles wrote:
That's your question.

Already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
You are in a hopeless pickle of your own making.

No, he already answered it. Why do you keep asking this question?


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 01:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Never answered you know it Duck Dodgers.

Into the Night wrote:
The person will primarily heat the room by conduction (assuming normal air pressure and humidity), not by radiance.

Are you claiming that the person stops radiating? You do realize Stefan-Boltzmann is quite clear that EVERY BODY RADIATES.

What radiance do you calculate?
Edited on 27-08-2019 01:05
27-08-2019 01:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
....Asked and answered.
.


You get to say that when you've had an answer.

So come on Mr. Scientist.

If an average human radiates over 700 watts, which works out about 14,000 calories, or 6 large pizzas, of energy, how on Earth are we all not hypotheric?

I have given my answer (Well agreed with the college text book).
BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM Textbook

You have put so much energy into dodging.

Paragraphs about my motives and trickery. Just answer it.

Do it the right way.

Because we are in warm rooms and we are not overloading our body's ability to generate thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 01:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Because we are in warm rooms and we are not overloading our body's ability to generate thermal energy.


How much energy is emitted through radiance?

I calculate over 700 watts.

How does a warm room help restore any of that 700+ watt loss?
27-08-2019 01:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
Never answered you know it Duck Dodgers.

YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The person will primarily heat the room by conduction (assuming normal air pressure and humidity), not by radiance.

Are you claiming that the person stops radiating?

Nope. Never did.
tmiddles wrote:
You do realize Stefan-Boltzmann is quite clear that EVERY BODY RADIATES.

As long as they are above absolute zero.
tmiddles wrote:
What radiance do you calculate?

I already calculated it for you. Go back and look it up again.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 01:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Because we are in warm rooms and we are not overloading our body's ability to generate thermal energy.


How much energy is emitted through radiance?

I calculate over 700 watts.

How does a warm room help restore any of that 700+ watt loss?


Then he's dead. His body temperature is too low. His body temperature is approximately -123 deg F.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-08-2019 01:25
27-08-2019 03:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Then he's dead. His body temperature is too low. His body temperature is approximately -123 deg F.


What is your calculation? Share it.
27-08-2019 04:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: You get to say that when you've had an answer.

I just checked and yes, it was in this very thread that I answered your question and I included a nifty picture. You then quoted my answer in a direct response.

You are welcome to read it.

So come on Mr. Marxist.


.


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
27-08-2019 04:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Into the Night wrote:I already calculated it for you. Go back and look it up again.

Back when tmiddles had us on his "ignore list" at least he was being honest that he was ignoring us. Now he has become a broken record "You never posted what you posted."

I will give him hints to where he can find complete answers and other material that I have already posted but I'm not going to waste my time for his amusement.

.


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
27-08-2019 04:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:it was in this very thread that I answered your question and I included a nifty picture.


You just love to hide the ball! "Oh hunt through my post to find the answer"

You never did. Of course not. The threads not that big.

So to keep this int he appropriate thread:

If a person has 2000 calories of food, which is 7/8ths of a pizza, per day

that works out to about 100watts of thermal energy.

24*60*60 = 86,400 seconds a day
1 Calorie = 1000 calories
1 calorie = 4.18 Watts
so 2000 Calories = 8,360,000 watts a day
so about 100 watts

Now to maintain body temperature and lose 700 watts a person would need 7 times the calories, 14000, or about 6 large pizzas a day:



Now I think I could do it!

But keep in mind this would be just to not go hypothermic in a room that is 20C, 68 F.

So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding, or how heat is reduced or however we want to tackle it.

Clearly there is a missing piece of your puzzle here.
27-08-2019 05:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1528)
tmiddles wrote:
So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding,


Why do I sweat when my surroundings are cooler than my body?

Just "food" for thought.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
27-08-2019 05:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding,


Why do I sweat when my surroundings are cooler than my body?

Just "food" for thought.


GasGuzzler,

Please think on this. IBdaMann, ITN and possibly you, insist that a person cannot absorb energy from cooler surroundings.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not adaptable. You ARE emitting over 700 watts right now and always. Sometimes more but not less.

You said earlier:
GasGuzzler wrote:...
Yes, the only energy source is food, provided there is no light in the room.


So what do you say now?
27-08-2019 05:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1528)
As I stated earlier, these calculations are way over my head. With that said, I did a bit of searching and EVERY source I can find states that the human body emits only 100 watts. How did you get 700?
27-08-2019 06:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10248)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:it was in this very thread that I answered your question and I included a nifty picture.


You just love to hide the ball! "Oh hunt through my post to find the answer"

You never did. Of course not. The threads not that big.

So to keep this int he appropriate thread:

If a person has 2000 calories of food, which is 7/8ths of a pizza, per day

that works out to about 100watts of thermal energy.

24*60*60 = 86,400 seconds a day
1 Calorie = 1000 calories
1 calorie = 4.18 Watts
so 2000 Calories = 8,360,000 watts a day
so about 100 watts

Now to maintain body temperature and lose 700 watts a person would need 7 times the calories, 14000, or about 6 large pizzas a day:



Now I think I could do it!

But keep in mind this would be just to not go hypothermic in a room that is 20C, 68 F.

So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding, or how heat is reduced or however we want to tackle it.

Clearly there is a missing piece of your puzzle here.

Your math.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-08-2019 06:54
27-08-2019 06:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
GasGuzzler wrote:
As I stated earlier, these calculations are way over my head. With that said, I did a bit of searching and EVERY source I can find states that the human body emits only 100 watts. How did you get 700?

You are correct that the human body LOSES 100 watts. That's because it's 700 out, 600 back from the environment. Because we do absorb energy from our environment.

I'm of course not the one who discovered this or anything and I'm being far from creative. I understand the textbooks lesson and it makes sense to me:

tmiddles wrote:
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)

My calculation for the emittance is -723.3221 watts out, and my calculation for the absorption is +624.79 for a net loss of -98.532

But again I was just following the text book. Makes sense to me.

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


I stumbled upon this and it's definitive proof that the wild and unconventional theory that hotter bodies cannot absorb energy from cooler ones is just plain wrong.

So far no opinion has been offered to contradict this.
Edited on 27-08-2019 06:56
Page 11 of 19<<<910111213>>>





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