Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

GasGuzzler wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

spot wrote: Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.

spot wrote: Put "Blanket" into Wikipedia you will find ...

spot wrote: 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.

spot wrote: So heat that would be lost is retained,

spot wrote: You tell me why the greenhouse effect violates the laws of themodynamics

spot wrote: and why only supergenuius on this forum ...

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.

Yes, it would be very wrong for you to instruct someone.

spot wrote: Put "Blanket" into Wikipedia you will find ...

That's your first mistake ... wait ... that is by no means your first mistake.

Withdrawn.

spot wrote: 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.

So you know it is obviously in error. Without the atmosphere the earth's surface would reach 262 degrees Fahrenheit, or 128 degrees Celsius ... but the earth's atmosphere acts as a refrigerant and keeps it very cool. You can tell because the ocean doesn't boil away in the daytime.

Refrigerant. Like putting a handful of ice into a beverage to keep it cool!

Wikipedia article DISMISSED!

spot wrote: So heat that would be lost is retained,

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.

spot wrote: You tell me why the greenhouse effect violates the laws of themodynamics

Oh, pick me! Pick me!

Warmizombies, in their infinite scientific illiteracy claim that Greenhouse Effect causes the earth's average global temperature to increase without additional energy. This is an egregious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, and energy cannot be magickaly created (or destroyed).

spot wrote: and why only supergenuius on this forum ...

I highly recommend being a supergenius. It's great! You really should try it.


.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

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.

So blankets and tea cozys are still beyond you?

spot wrote:He took the measurements ...

spot wrote:You obviously are getting very excited and spent allot of time on that but why do you only know this?

spot wrote:

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

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:He took the measurements ...

Like I said, he didn't create any science related to black body radiation.

You did not know that. You thought he was some sort of science creator.

I wouldn't patronize me If I were you.

Read a book.

... oh wait, that presumes you can read.


.

spot wrote:Considering the Stephan Bolzman law is based on his measurements .

IBdaMann wrote:If you calculate using the parameters he gave you...Does your skin more or less become the ambient temperature? The body temperature given in the problem does not apply

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles' ... 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 wrote:Would a car inside the 70 degree room with the engine running be reasonable apples to apples?

IBdaMann wrote:Maybe tmiddles will provide a dataset that meets the criteria spelled out in the Data Mine

Into the Night wrote:
Incompatible units. ...Radiance is not heat. There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'...

GasGuzzler wrote:
Problem. I am a heat source....

GasGuzzler wrote:
I'll ask YOU. I'm light skinned but fairly tan, except for my britches. White as a gohst. I had pizza burgers for dinner last night, 5 of them. Nothing for breakfast but had a double Whopper with fake cheese and onion rings for lunch. That gave me gas, so I'm guessing I'm radiating 900+ watts right now.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I was attempting to address the ignorance of YOUR question. Epic fail?

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?

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.

tmiddles wrote:
I have invited anyone to answer this simple question:

How much does a person in a room radiate as per stefan-Boltzmann?

tmiddles wrote:
Is the only source of heat energy for that person food?

tmiddles wrote:
Make all the excuses you want.

tmiddles wrote:
You cannot answer that and exclude the absorption of radiance from the environment.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:If you calculate using the parameters he gave you...Does your skin more or less become the ambient temperature? The body temperature given in the problem does not apply

Use your own numbers. Calculate the radiance? What's the heat energy derived from food?

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles' ... 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.

OK expose my trick! What's the right answer to the thermodynamics of a person in a room? Go ahead.

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Would a car inside the 70 degree room with the engine running be reasonable apples to apples?

Sure, we generate heat too. Yes it's apples to apples if the surface temp is in the human range.

tmiddles wrote:
The person in a room scenario is useful because we have our own experience as a reference.

tmiddles wrote:
So some nonesense like:

IBdaMann wrote:Maybe tmiddles will provide a dataset that meets the criteria spelled out in the Data Mine

Valid data set's for human body temperature? For the temperature of 70F room?
Yeah. Hide in your excuses IBdaMann.

Into the Night wrote:
Incompatible units. ...Radiance is not heat. There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'...

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Problem. I am a heat source....

Ask IBdaMann, ITN or anyone to calculate how much you radiate GasGuzzler. Don't settle for them simply saying I do it wrong. Ask for the math. You won't get it.

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I'll ask YOU. I'm light skinned but fairly tan, except for my britches. White as a gohst. I had pizza burgers for dinner last night, 5 of them. Nothing for breakfast but had a double Whopper with fake cheese and onion rings for lunch. That gave me gas, so I'm guessing I'm radiating 900+ watts right now.

I take it from your tone that living a lie with fake science on this board is a joke to you. But to address the ignorance in your question your emitted Radiance is based only on your surface temperature, which would not change barring some severe Health event, and the surface area of your skin. That's it.

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I was attempting to address the ignorance of YOUR question. Epic fail?

Indeed you did. I just don't find this funny.

tmiddles wrote:
Provide any reasonable range for the emmissivity, skin area and surface temperature for a person and I can calculate (by following the textbooks instructions) the range of energy lost from emmission of radiance.

tmiddles wrote:
You may be missing the point here so I'll spell it out.

tmiddles wrote:
This problem proves that every claim ever made by anyone that a cooler object's radiance cannot be absorbed by a warmer object is incorrect.

tmiddles wrote:
There is no way to explain the thermodynamics of you and I, people in rooms, without including the absorption of radiance from the cooler environment.

tmiddles wrote:
Aren't you a little angry you've been lied to on here so consistently?

tmiddles wrote:
Notice there is no other answer to the problem even proposed other than that of the text book, whick I concure with.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann is dodging and hiding as best he can but there is no escaping the truth:

tmiddles wrote:

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?

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.

Into the Night wrote:
Absorption is unspecified. Coupling is unspecified. You have attempted to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You continue to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All this has been explained to you. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Absorption is unspecified. Coupling is unspecified. You have attempted to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You continue to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All this has been explained to you. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.

And you have no answer at all, just excuses.

tmiddles wrote:
I have invited you repeatedly to to do the problem in the manner you consider proper. You have chosen not to.

tmiddles wrote:
A person in a room radiates. Calculate it using your own numbers and explain how they can maintain body heat based on energy derived from food alone.

tmiddles wrote:
You can't. Neither can IBdaMann or Gasguzzler or anyone who insists that the person cannot absorb energy from their cooler surroundings.

IBdaMann wrote:

Stefan-Boltzmann is the integral of Planck's distribution over all wavelengths. It is a straightforward derivation.


There's no John Tyndall in the equation (no pun intended).


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Stefan-Boltzmann is the integral of Planck's distribution over all wavelengths. It is a straightforward derivation.


There's no John Tyndall in the equation (no pun intended).


.

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Re:earth as a black body
Where does the earth end and its environment begin? At the surface of the earth, at the troposphere, at the stratosphere, at the ionosphere, at the edge of the solar system, at the edge of the galaxy, at the event horizon?

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
what happens when you consider earth to be the body and the various components of the atmosphere and the solar system, etc. to be earth's environment (an environment that can act as an insulator)?

tmiddles wrote:
I summed up my position in a topic here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Re:earth as a black body

keepit wrote:
Where does the earth end and its environment begin?

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Re:earth as a black body
Where does the earth end and its environment begin? At the surface of the earth, at the troposphere, at the stratosphere, at the ionosphere, at the edge of the solar system, at the edge of the galaxy, at the event horizon?

The "surface" from the perspective of radiant energy is everything that is able to radiate directly to space, also everything that can receive radiance from space (which may not be exactly the same).

Consider Uranus:
uranus-composition

It's essentially all atmosphere.

The surface from a radiant energy/temperature point of view is not the same as "the surface" we mean when we talk about landing a ship or walking around.

The thermosphere is where ozone is hit by ultraviolet light so that's definitely an important part of "the surface".

I try to say "ground level" when that's what I mean.

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
what happens when you consider earth to be the body and the various components of the atmosphere and the solar system, etc. to be earth's environment (an environment that can act as an insulator)?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I summed up my position in a topic here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

....your position is simply to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

tmiddles wrote:No I have demonstrated that your version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false.

IBdaMann wrote:
You had your chance to produce a repeatable example

tmiddles wrote:
We are people in rooms not freezing to death as I write this.

IBdaMann wrote: "And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

tmiddles wrote:The repeated instance is the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.