Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 12 of 19<<<1011121314>>>
27-08-2019 06:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
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?

He is emitting more than that! He is obviously alive and responding intelligently.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 06:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
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


There is no 'net heat'. There is no 'net radiance'. Using made up equations to show there is won't work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 06:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
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.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 06:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:There is no 'net heat'. There is no 'net radiance'. Using made up equations to show there is won't work.


What there is none of is a solution from you.

So ITN:

Does a person in a room emit over 700 watts or not?

If they do how is it that they don't become hypothermic?


You can't answer.
27-08-2019 06:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no 'net heat'. There is no 'net radiance'. Using made up equations to show there is won't work.


What there is none of is a solution from you.

So ITN:

Does a person in a room emit over 700 watts or not?

If they do how is it that they don't become hypothermic?


You can't answer.


I did answer. They're dead.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 07:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
I did answer. They're dead.


Are you unable to setup the calculation for a person who survives?
27-08-2019 07:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I did answer. They're dead.


Are you unable to setup the calculation for a person who survives?


You specified they were emitting 700W. They're dead.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 08:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
You specified


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.

You can't do it.
27-08-2019 15:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
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?

That's his point. If you calculate using the parameters he gave you you get about seven times the normal wattage.

The problem is in the problem. It's a parlor trick. None of the parameters given are actually part of the problem but are intended to misdirect, including the body being a living human as opposed to an inanimate object.

What does your skin do when you get cold? Does this change both the emissivity and thermal constant?

When you change ambient temperatures, do you "acclimate"? If so, what does that mean? Does your skin more or less become the ambient temperature? The body temperature given in the problem does not apply, just as the earth's inner core temperature is not a factor in the earth's average global temperature. You might recall during tmiddles' "inner ball/outer shell" scenario he strangely insisted on having a thermometer inside the inner ball. I'm thinking he was setting the groundwork for this parlor trick.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 15:23
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
IBdaMann wrote:
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?

That's his point. If you calculate using the parameters he gave you you get about seven times the normal wattage.

The problem is in the problem. It's a parlor trick. None of the parameters given are actually part of the problem but are intended to misdirect, including the body being a living human as opposed to an inanimate object.

What does your skin do when you get cold? Does this change both the emissivity and thermal constant?

When you change ambient temperatures, do you "acclimate"? If so, what does that mean? Does your skin more or less become the ambient temperature? The body temperature given in the problem does not apply, just as the earth's inner core temperature is not a factor in the earth's average global temperature. You might recall during tmiddles' "inner ball/outer shell" scenario he strangely insisted on having a thermometer inside the inner ball. I'm thinking he was setting the groundwork for this parlor trick.

.

Agree. I went back searching this thread and found him wanting to include the molten core with Earth's average temp. He was also playing dumb early on.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
27-08-2019 15:50
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
I will admit though, tmiddles got my gears turning. That's a good thing, right?


I've been trying to come up with an analogy to his question. Would a car inside the 70 degree room with the engine running be reasonable apples to apples?

Seems you could calculate the emissivity of the "skin", but with the engine running creating heat....hell I don't know from there.

I do know the car would not absorb any heat from the cooler walls, provided the engine heated the skin above 70 by conduction and convection.

I've actually lost sleep over this, so someone help me out now!

Edited on 27-08-2019 15:51
27-08-2019 17:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
GasGuzzler wrote: I will admit though, tmiddles got my gears turning. That's a good thing, right?

Absolutely. I like a good puzzle as muchy as the next guy. I like trick questions that try to "getcha."

But you probably noticed that tmiddles is not presenting this in standard riddle fashion. He is defending his religious beliefs. Imagine a conversation as such:

Christian: You say that you don't believe there is a God. How do you explain creation?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't

Christian: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

Christian: Explain creation.

repeat....


I have had this very conversation quite a few times back in the day. They all end the same way. There is no way I can convince a Christian to accept answers/conclusions that deny his religious beliefs and there is no reason for any Christian to abandon a faith that s/he enjoys if it helps in her/his life. Today, I am getting the same argument from tmiddles:

tmiddles: You say you don't believe cooler objects can heat warmer objects because it would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't. The problem is in the problem.

tmiddles: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

tmiddles: How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

repeat ....


GasGuzzler wrote:I've been trying to come up with an analogy to his question.

My question remains the same: What valid dataset exists for all of the necessary parameters?

If the answer is "none" then the first assumption by any rational person is that the parameters of the problem are suspect.

GasGuzzler wrote: I've actually lost sleep over this, so someone help me out now!

Do you have any data? If not, then that needs to be your first concern. Maybe tmiddles will provide a dataset that meets the criteria spelled out in the Data Mine

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 18:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You specified


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.

You can't do it.


Incompatible units. This has already been explained to you.

Radiance is not heat. There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Heat doesn't 'transfer'. Emissivity has no term for frequency. It does not occur anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This has already been explained to you.

I have already calculated the blackbody light from a body at 33 deg C and and emissivity of 0.97. I have also already described to you the randU nature of using 0.97 for emissivity. Why do you keep repetitively asking the same thing over and over?

Repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 27-08-2019 18:33
27-08-2019 18:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote: I will admit though, tmiddles got my gears turning. That's a good thing, right?

Absolutely. I like a good puzzle as muchy as the next guy. I like trick questions that try to "getcha."

But you probably noticed that tmiddles is not presenting this in standard riddle fashion. He is defending his religious beliefs. Imagine a conversation as such:

Christian: You say that you don't believe there is a God. How do you explain creation?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't

Christian: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

Christian: Explain creation.

repeat....


I have had this very conversation quite a few times back in the day. They all end the same way. There is no way I can convince a Christian to accept answers/conclusions that deny his religious beliefs and there is no reason for any Christian to abandon a faith that s/he enjoys if it helps in her/his life. Today, I am getting the same argument from tmiddles:

tmiddles: You say you don't believe cooler objects can heat warmer objects because it would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't. The problem is in the problem.

tmiddles: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

tmiddles: How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

repeat ....


GasGuzzler wrote:I've been trying to come up with an analogy to his question.

My question remains the same: What valid dataset exists for all of the necessary parameters?

If the answer is "none" then the first assumption by any rational person is that the parameters of the problem are suspect.

GasGuzzler wrote: I've actually lost sleep over this, so someone help me out now!

Do you have any data? If not, then that needs to be your first concern. Maybe tmiddles will provide a dataset that meets the criteria spelled out in the Data Mine

.

So far he has shown no inclination to.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 19:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
It seems odd that neither Ludwig Boltzmann or Josef Stefan bothered to say anything about their works negating John Tyndall's on his work on atmospheric physics.

On second thought its not odd at all,

They did not because it doesn't and only a weapons grade idiot would think that it does.

If I were that stupid I would do the world a favour and remove myself from the gene pool at the earliest opportunity.
27-08-2019 19:52
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?
27-08-2019 19:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 20:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
spot is back! Awesome! Nothing livens the place quite like spot giving us his unique and scintillating melange of cognitive ataxia. It has been too long; let me just soak it up ...

spot wrote: It seems odd that neither Ludwig Boltzmann or Josef Stefan bothered to say anything about their works negating John Tyndall's on his work on atmospheric physics.

On second thought its not odd at all,

They did not because it doesn't and only a weapons grade idiot would think that it does.

Correct. John Tyndall didn't create any science having anything to do with black body radiation and only a weapons grade idiot would think that he did.

spot wrote: If I were that stupid I would do the world a favour and remove myself from the gene pool at the earliest opportunity.

Since you are that stupid, when will you be complying?


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 20:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot is back! Awesome! Nothing livens the place quite like spot giving us his unique and scintillating melange of cognitive ataxia. It has been too long; let me just soak it up ...

spot wrote: It seems odd that neither Ludwig Boltzmann or Josef Stefan bothered to say anything about their works negating John Tyndall's on his work on atmospheric physics.

On second thought its not odd at all,

They did not because it doesn't and only a weapons grade idiot would think that it does.

Correct. John Tyndall didn't create any science having anything to do with black body radiation and only a weapons grade idiot would think that he did.

spot wrote: If I were that stupid I would do the world a favour and remove myself from the gene pool at the earliest opportunity.

Since you are that stupid, when will you be complying?


He took the measurements used to workout the stefan-boltzmann law.

You did not know that.

I wouldn't patronize me If I were you.

Read a book.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 20:08
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
27-08-2019 20:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
spot wrote:So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


From The MANUAL:

Greenhouse Effect: proper noun
Global Warming's loyal servant, creates "heat" when fed CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas by invoking his magickal superpower to force a black body to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the earth's heat budget to aid Global Warming in His war against Climate. This belief falls under Settled Science.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

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

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

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

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




.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 20:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 20:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


From The MANUAL:

Greenhouse Effect: proper noun
Global Warming's loyal servant, creates "heat" when fed CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas by invoking his magickal superpower to force a black body to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the earth's heat budget to aid Global Warming in His war against Climate. This belief falls under Settled Science.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

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

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

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

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




.


You wrote this crap and you are mad. Who spells magic magick, Crowley is dead. Anyway Its not anything to do with anything real. There are actual physics books people can read.

Calling something a Manual does not make it special.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

It is not possible to trap or slow heat. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
spot wrote:
They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Unfortunately, yes. they also teach 12 year olds that tomatoes are a vegetable.
spot wrote:
Is google broken?

Was it ever working?
spot wrote:
If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

He understands why he is here. I presume you have no clue why he is here.

BTW, Welcome back spot!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 27-08-2019 20:34
27-08-2019 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


From The MANUAL:

Greenhouse Effect: proper noun
Global Warming's loyal servant, creates "heat" when fed CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas by invoking his magickal superpower to force a black body to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the earth's heat budget to aid Global Warming in His war against Climate. This belief falls under Settled Science.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

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

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

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

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




.


You wrote this crap and you are mad.

No, he didn't. He contributed to it, but he didn't write the whole thing. Many people wrote it.
spot wrote:
Who spells magic magick,

I do, if the phenomenon being described has mysterious origins and is being described as the truth. The same way Crowley used it.
spot wrote:
Crowley is dead.

So?
spot wrote:
Anyway Its not anything to do with anything real.

Correct. It's made up shit.
spot wrote:
There are actual physics books people can read.

Too bad you don't read them. If you did, you wouldn't be denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
spot wrote:
Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

Oh I think it does. Until you can define 'global warming' and 'climate change', it's the best definitions we have.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-08-2019 20:37
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
27-08-2019 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Since the greenhouse effect is described in physics textbooks you have a problem.

https://www.elsevier.com/books/fundamentals-of-atmospheric-physics/salby/978-0-12-615160-2


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 27-08-2019 20:49
27-08-2019 20:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.


You cant buy a blanket?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 20:51
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.


You cant buy a blanket?


Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
27-08-2019 20:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.


You cant buy a blanket?


Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.


Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 21:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.


You cant buy a blanket?


Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.


Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.


Not how it works buddy boy. If I'm wrong the you gotta tell me why. How else will I learn?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
27-08-2019 21:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
spot wrote: Heat is retained in both systems


From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 21:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?


So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?


IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun


Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?


Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.


You cant buy a blanket?


Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.


Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.


Not how it works buddy boy. If I'm wrong the you gotta tell me why. How else will I learn?


Put "Blanket" into Wikipedia you will find

A blanket is a piece of soft cloth large enough either to cover or to enfold a great portion of the user's body, usually when sleeping or otherwise at rest, thereby trapping radiant bodily heat that otherwise would be lost through convection, and so keeping the body warm.

the greenhouse effect;

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.[1][2]

Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet's atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. [3] The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect – will depend on the atmosphere's temperature and on the amount of greenhouse gases that the atmosphere contains.

So heat that would be lost is retained, the fact we aren't the same temperature as the moon is proof of that. radiation or convection does not matter the fact is one thing is stopping another thing from cooling. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect you don't believe in blankets and that would be absurd.

I've answered a question for you now answer a question for me.


You tell me why the greenhouse effect violates the laws of themodynamics and why only supergenuius on this forum seem have cottoned on to this?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 21:19
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Problem. I am a heat source. If I put a blanket over myself, heat is reduced I can stay warmer.

The earth's surface is not a heat source. How does the blanket heat the Earth? Is it an electric blanket? That works.
Edited on 27-08-2019 21:20
27-08-2019 21:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.


spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 21:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.


spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.


The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 21:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Problem. I am a heat source. If I put a blanket over myself, heat is reduced I can stay warmer.

The earth's surface is not a heat source. How does the blanket heat the Earth? Is it an electric blanket? That works.


If your confused make it a tea cozy.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 21:28
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.


spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.


The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?


Yes, you can contact me. I am a peer and I reviewed it. All the definitions are "spot" on.



gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
27-08-2019 21:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.


spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.


The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?


Yes, you can contact me. I am a peer and I reviewed it. All the definitions are "spot" on.


So your a diehard warmizombie?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-08-2019 21:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.


spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.


The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?


Yes, you can contact me. I am a peer and I reviewed it. All the definitions are "spot" on.


So your a diehard warmizombie?
I wish I was, it's seems to be the cool thing to be these days. However, I can't seem to wrap my brain around heating a warmer surface with a colder gas. Once I can grasp that concept, I'm all in.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Page 12 of 19<<<1011121314>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Brandolini's Law- Applicable to Climate Change Hoax028-06-2020 15:26
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank1711-06-2020 16:22
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist12812-03-2020 02:10
2nd law11628-02-2020 00:09
Open vs closed/ 2nd law5424-02-2020 22:09
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact