Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 13 of 19<<<1112131415>>>
27-08-2019 21:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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?


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 21:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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?


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 21:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
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.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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 21:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


.


You obviously are getting very excited and spent allot of time on that but why do you only know 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 21:44
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
y
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?


Not at all. How does the t get hot? does the t get hotter when you put a cuzie on it?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 27-08-2019 21:46
27-08-2019 21:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
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.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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 21:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
spot wrote:You obviously are getting very excited and spent allot of time on that but why do you only know this?

Not a lot of time. It sort of wrote itself.

You seem to have this impression that there are many things that I don't know that I actually know.

Just for laughs, why don't you list off the things you think I don't know ... just to see what they are. I'll let you know if you're on the money of if you are off track.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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 21:52
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Oh me me me!!!!

Did you know back in the day, IBdaMann was a hotshot programmer and that little violation picture probably took him in about 6 and 2/3 seconds?
27-08-2019 21:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.



By the way, I haven't thanked you lately for honoring me in your signature. It is greatly appreciated. Please continue for as long as you like.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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 21:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


.


Considering the Stephan Bolzman law is based on his measurements and he is famous for his work on the greenhouse effect its strange that that neither Stephan nor Bolzman nor anyone else till now have mentioned the fact that his work dramatically violates the laws of physics. The only people who believe this seem to be internet cranks. this assertion does not seem to pre-date the internet anyway.


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 22:01
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Spot, I took an extra-long extended lunch in celebration of your return. It's been a fun shit show, but I got to go hope you stick around I'll check in this evening
27-08-2019 23:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
spot wrote:Considering the Stephan Bolzman law is based on his measurements .

John Tyndall had no influence on the development of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Global Warming isn't real. Greenhouse Effect is a violation of science.

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).


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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 23:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
I have invited anyone to answer this simple question:

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

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

Make all the excuses you want.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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'...

Use your own units. Use yourself right now in the room your in and how much you eat. NOTHING is stopping you from doing the calculation properly.

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.
27-08-2019 23:49
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
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.
28-08-2019 00:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
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.
Edited on 28-08-2019 00:38
28-08-2019 01:02
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
I was attempting to address the ignorance of YOUR question. Epic fail?
28-08-2019 01:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I was attempting to address the ignorance of YOUR question. Epic fail?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

IBdaMann is dodging and hiding as best he can but there is no escaping the truth:
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.
28-08-2019 02:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
tmiddles wrote:
I have invited anyone to answer this simple question:

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

I have already answered this question using the numbers you gave me. Don't ask it again. Repetition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Is the only source of heat energy for that person food?

Unspecified.
tmiddles wrote:
Make all the excuses you want.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You cannot answer that and exclude the absorption of radiance from the environment.

Yes you can. The radiance of the environment means nothing.
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?

Unspecified. Argument from randU fallacy.
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.

Already answered. Repetition fallacy.
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.

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

Strawman fallacy.
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.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.
Into the Night wrote:
Incompatible units. ...Radiance is not heat. There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'...

Use your own units. Use yourself right now in the room your in and how much you eat. NOTHING is stopping you from doing the calculation properly.[/quote]
Repetition fallacy.
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.

Already answered. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 02:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
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.


Already answered. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 02:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
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.

Too bad. So much for your religion.
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.

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

Your point is that you are trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
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.

You just denied the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer object with a cooler one.
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.

Sure there is. Already answered. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Aren't you a little angry you've been lied to on here so consistently?

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

False authority fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann is dodging and hiding as best he can but there is no escaping the truth:

It is YOU that is denying the laws of physics here.
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 02:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
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.

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

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.

You can't. Neither can IBdaMann or Gasguzzler or anyone who insists that the person cannot absorb energy from their cooler surroundings.
28-08-2019 06:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
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.

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

Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
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.

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

* You can't make heat flow backwards.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 21:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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).


.


Correcting you is getting boring, you belive this stuff but if Uncle IBdaman is helping with your homework prepare to fail.

I was just asking why nobody noticed what you seem to think is blindingly obvious before.


Strange isn't it.


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.
28-08-2019 21:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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).


.


Correcting you is getting boring, you belive this stuff but if Uncle IBdaman is helping with your homework prepare to fail.

I was just asking why nobody noticed what you seem to think is blindingly obvious before.


Strange isn't it.


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.
RE: Summary topic created29-08-2019 00:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
I summed up my position in a topic here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
29-08-2019 00:43
keepit
★★★★☆
(1354)
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?
29-08-2019 00:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
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.
29-08-2019 00:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1354)
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)?
29-08-2019 01:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
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)?


Well that's also true. I could consider myself to be a body and the room I'm in to be my environment. You can look at the earth, the solid/liquid ball, as a body and the gas astmosphere as it's environment.

We are less concerned with how Earth interacts with the sun and the void of space then we are with how the ground level of Earth interacts with the rest of the atmosphere and the whole system.
29-08-2019 01:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
tmiddles wrote:
I summed up my position in a topic here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference


Yes. Your position is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been falsified, and that the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been falsified, yet you have not shown how they have been falsified.

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


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 01:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Re:earth as a black body

WRONG. Earth is not an ideal black body. It's emissivity is unknown, however.
keepit wrote:
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?
[/quote]

Most people consider the Earth and it's atmosphere to be Earth. That includes the atmosphere up to and including it's thermosphere.

Environment does not exclude Earth.

Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
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.

No, ozone is created primarily at the base of the stratosphere, just a bit above the tropopause.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 01:37
keepit
★★★★☆
(1354)
Tmid,
Maybe my approach is too simplistic, i look at the earth as the body that does its SB thing and the atmosphere that acts as an insulator, which increases in temp and emits thermal energy up and down. The result is that we have an earth that is increasing in temp and an atmosphere also increasing in temp. It's in wiki.
I think the SB law is being misapplied when one takes the atmosphere and the earth as a black body in itself.
29-08-2019 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
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)?


Redefinition fallacy (environment<->thermal insulator).


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 04:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
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.


No I have demonstrated that your version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false. There is no way to explain how a person maintains body temperature in a 70F room following your made up rules. You can't explain it with your version because you're wrong. Which is why you have yet to even lay out a calculation.
Edited on 29-08-2019 04:44
29-08-2019 05:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
tmiddles wrote:No I have demonstrated that your version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false.


Far from it. You have not even started.

You know who else NEEDS the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be false?

Fundamentalist Christians. I'm not sure why but religious fundamentalists don't much appreciate science that throws cold water on stories that are assumed to be true.

Anyway, the 2nd law of thermodynamics remains quite safe despite your unsupported claims that it is false.

You had your chance to produce a repeatable example but you opted to leave the 2nd law of thermodynamics undisputed.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
29-08-2019 05:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
IBdaMann wrote:
You had your chance to produce a repeatable example


Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Repeatable?!?

You me and everyone bub. We are people in rooms not freezing to death as I write this.

You have nothing you can say to explain our known radiance, justify our not absorbing any from cooler walls, and explain how we don't freeze to death.

You are a fraud.
Edited on 29-08-2019 05:53
29-08-2019 13:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
tmiddles wrote:
We are people in rooms not freezing to death as I write this.


So, you and I are in and endless loop. Every time you bring up this example, I will simply copy-paste the following:

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

... and I encourage everyone else to do the same until you meet your burden to support your claim, per the scientific method.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
29-08-2019 13:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2884)
IBdaMann wrote: "And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

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.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?
29-08-2019 14:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
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.

Nope. It didn't work. The 2nd law of thermodynamics appears to remain intact.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
Page 13 of 19<<<1112131415>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Greenhouse Gas and Warming11011-02-2020 17:48
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
▲ 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