Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. It didn't work.

tmiddles wrote:

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.

tmiddles wrote:
There is no way to explain how a person maintains body temperature in a 70F room following your made up rules.

tmiddles wrote:
You can't explain it with your version because you're wrong.

tmiddles wrote:
Which is why you have yet to even lay out a calculation.

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

.

tmiddles wrote:

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.

tmiddles wrote:

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.

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

tmiddles wrote:
Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law

tmiddles wrote:
and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

Into the Night wrote:
. Our skin is heated by ourselves. We do not need to absorb anything from the room....
A person radiating a mere 700W is dead.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
. Our skin is heated by ourselves. We do not need to absorb anything from the room....
A person radiating a mere 700W is dead.

How much does a person radiate by your calculation?

tmiddles wrote:
How much thermal energy do we produce internally by you calculation?

tmiddles wrote:
As I showed I get -723watts radiance and +100watts from digestion.

tmiddles wrote:
You have had no answer for this.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
How much thermal energy do we produce internally by you calculation?

As much as we need, up to the limits of our bodies.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
How much thermal energy do we produce internally by you calculation?

As much as we need, up to the limits of our bodies.

What would you say the limit is?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
How much thermal energy do we produce internally by you calculation?

As much as we need, up to the limits of our bodies.

What would you say the limit is?

Unknown.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
How much thermal energy do we produce internally by you calculation?

As much as we need, up to the limits of our bodies.

What would you say the limit is?

Unknown.

Unknown as in it could be 1,000,000 watts?

tmiddles wrote:
Isn't the human body running on fuel consumed in a predictable and finite range?

tmiddles wrote:
How about for a body at rest, seated?

Into the Night wrote:
Unknown.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Unknown.

I can tell you it's over 700 watts. Do you know how to figure it out? Would you like me to teach you? You seem lost.

Into the Night wrote:[/b
What about
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?

[b]tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?

Let's see. Did I do it right?:

For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:[/b
What about
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?

[b]tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?

Let's see. Did I do it right?:

For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

Into the Night wrote:
Be careful about spamming like that. People get banned in this board for that.

Into the Night wrote:
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Be careful about spamming like that. People get banned in this board for that.

Is that what got you banned from debatepolitics?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You have to give tmiddles credit where it's due. He tricked you. He distracted you enough to get you focused on his right hand while his left hand tucked the coin into his pocket.


It never was about Stefan-Boltzmann.

IBdaMann wrote:
It's about the 2nd law of thermodynamics not holding. If he can get you talking about Stefan-Boltzmann then you aren't requiring him to explain/justify his claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false.

IBdaMann wrote:
That's why he fights tooth and nail to keep the topic fixed on Stefan-Boltzmann and thermal radiation and 700watts.

IBdaMann wrote:
By any chance has tmiddles PM'ed you a repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body? Strangely, he hasn't gotten around to bringing an instance to my attention so naturally I assume it's because he was busy sending it to you.


.

IBdaMann wrote:
You have to give tmiddles credit where it's due. He tricked you.

Into the Night wrote:
No. They are a kiddie pool that couldn't handle actual science.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You have to give tmiddles credit where it's due. He tricked you.

Wow! I have the super power of preventing you from doing things properly on your own! What a great excuse for you.

Into the Night wrote:
No. They are a kiddie pool that couldn't handle actual science.

I only just checked it out over there. I doesn't look like they had a legitimate reason and that's not cool.

spot wrote:
Because asking you why don't you freeze to death when you're in a room without a heat source makes someone a Marxist.

spot wrote:
Because asking you why don't you freeze to death when you're in a room without a heat source makes someone a Marxist.

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
Because asking you why don't you freeze to death when you're in a room without a heat source makes someone a Marxist.

Maybe it sounds like I'm worried about poor people! Who sit in bare rooms with no clothes to wear in the dark.

spot wrote:
You guys really are obtuse anyway we are laughing at you not with you.

spot wrote:
You guys really are obtuse anyway we are laughing at you not with you.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:
You guys really are obtuse anyway we are laughing at you not with you.

spot, I certainly missed your ... purity of rhetoric. Nothing you write is ever watered down with contributing ideas, critical reasoning, intellectual fodder, etc. I can always count on you to provide pure 100% verbiage.


It's good to have you back.

.

spot wrote:Have you got a reference for someone claiming that the phonomia commenly called the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics from before the internet yet?

Should be easy to find.

spot wrote:Have you got a reference for someone claiming that the phonomia commenly called the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics from before the internet yet?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.

Exactly. You trust. You have faith. You are devoted to what you were told to believe. You know not who took what measurements ....

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Have you got a reference for someone claiming that the phonomia commenly called the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics from before the internet yet?

Should be easy to find.

Absolutely.

To what definition of Greenhouse Effect are you referring? Every believer has his own very personal, very real definition.

Which one is yours?





(note: for your convenience I am presuming that you cannot muster enough independent thought to respond in any manner other than to seek Wikipedia's sole guidance. I have already prepared that answer)

.



.

spot wrote:The one that anyone who paid attention at secondary school or high-school or whatever you call it over their knows about.

spot wrote:Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.

The Marxist ant colony ensures you know everything you want to know by eliminating your desire to learn anything else.

The result is a fanatical congregation of absolute morons who think they are fugging geniuses.

Yes, I see that you're good. That's what I so sorely missed.


.

spot wrote:And yet we are no nearer to knowing when it was first noticed that the laws of the thermodynamics render all the work that has been done on atmospheric physics for the pass 200 years or so useless.

spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.

spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?

Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:

tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place

This book is in error....