Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 14 of 17<<<1213141516>>>
29-08-2019 14:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. It didn't work.


I guess your calculation was done privately.
29-08-2019 17:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

There is no 'version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics'. There is only the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. That is the only version. You just want to deny it.
tmiddles wrote:
There is no way to explain how a person maintains body temperature in a 70F room following your made up rules.

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

I already have. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Which is why you have yet to even lay out a calculation.

Try Fourier's law of conduction.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 17:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

.


Fundamentalist Christians try to use the 2nd law to show that life could not have originated on Earth by random chance. They are actually claiming that it's true, not false, but they are failing to take the Sun into account. In this way they are trying to falsify the Theory of Abiogenesis, which is not a theory of science anyway and therefore cannot be falsified.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 17:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


You cannot make heat flow backwards, liar.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 17:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

It doesn't have to. Our skin is heated by ourselves. We do not need to absorb anything from the room. The heat lost to the room is through conduction, not just radiance. See Fourier's law of conductive heating.
tmiddles wrote:
It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

No, it isn't. You can't make heat flow backwards.
tmiddles wrote:
Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies 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?

A person radiating a mere 700W is dead.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 21:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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?

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

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

You have had no answer for this.
29-08-2019 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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?

Already done using your numbers. You are asking and ignoring again. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
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:
As I showed I get -723watts radiance and +100watts from digestion.
You showed it using made up equations and made up numbers. You showed nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
You have had no answer for this.

Already answered. You are asking and ignoring again. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 21:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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?
29-08-2019 21:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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. It varies somewhat from human to human. It also varies depending on surrounding conditions and even the clothing someone wears, their own body weight, and how much they ate recently. It even varies on what they ate or drank recently.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-08-2019 21:55
29-08-2019 22:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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?

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

How about for a body at rest, seated?
Edited on 29-08-2019 22:07
29-08-2019 23:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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?

Unknown as it is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Isn't the human body running on fuel consumed in a predictable and finite range?

It also stores fuel.
tmiddles wrote:
How about for a body at rest, seated?

Unknown.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 23:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
29-08-2019 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


What about
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 23:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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
29-08-2019 23:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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

Duplication ignored. Answered in the other thread.

Be careful about spamming like that. People get banned in this board for that.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 00:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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?
30-08-2019 00:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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.

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.

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

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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
30-08-2019 02:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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?

No. They are a kiddie pool that couldn't handle actual science.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 02:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

Actually, he DID try to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law to an equation of his own. He denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law at that point.
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.

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

He is trying to use Stefan-Boltzmann and made up numbers to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
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.


.

Not received any PM's from him. He might as well not bother. Such PM's I will bring out into open discussion anyway.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 03:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
30-08-2019 05:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


I never though kiddie pool forums were particularly cool anyway. At least you researched it somewhat.

There are actually a lot of forums like that. Others failed because the operators went crazy and had to be institutionalized, some just failed for monetary reasons, some just got tired of putting up with handling them and closed them, many are kiddie pools, some failed just because the operators were incompetent.

Climate-Debate.com is built and operated by Branner. He's competent, has put together an excellent forum for debate, and does not generally interfere except to remove obvious spammers trying to sell something or those that are copying the same message over multiple threads. He really is a pretty fair minded guy. He's got his shit together as a programmer too. This software runs very well.

Currently, places like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and of course Wikipedia have gone out of their way to suppress conservative opinions, anyone that brings up any science that goes against the Church of Global Warming or the Church of Green, or the Church of Karl Marx.

Some accounts they would love to get rid of and silence but can't, because it would make it obvious what they are doing. One such is Trump's accounts on Twitter (he has two). They already tried to kill it once and it blew up in their face.

No, it's not cool. Censorship of this kind is not cool at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-08-2019 05:12
30-08-2019 08:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Because asking you why don't you freeze to death when you're in a room without a heat source makes someone a Marxist.
30-08-2019 08:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Because asking you why don't you freeze to death when you're in a room without a heat source makes someone a Marxist.
30-08-2019 09:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
30-08-2019 10:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


How do you figure?


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 10:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

Heh. Maybe it does, come to think of it!

I don't follow spot's reasoning at all. It's completely non-sequitur.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 18:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
You guys really are obtuse anyway we are laughing at you not with you.
30-08-2019 20:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
spot wrote:
You guys really are obtuse anyway we are laughing at you not with you.


We? Are you suffering from multiple personality disorder?


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 23:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
31-08-2019 12:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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.

.


Yea yea,

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.


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.
31-08-2019 15:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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)

.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
31-08-2019 15:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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?

I think they might believe the warmazombies have magic, or time machines, or maybe both!

IBdaMann thinks that the Russian space program was in on the fix back in the 1970s!

from:venus-is-hotter-than-mercury
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 ....

It's so spooky! Warmazombies!!!

so much magic
31-08-2019 15:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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)

.



.



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

You like to accuse people of evasion but that's exactly what you are doing now

Answer the bloody question.

"I can't find anything" is an acceptable answer and would be the truth.


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.
31-08-2019 15:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
spot wrote:The one that anyone who paid attention at secondary school or high-school or whatever you call it over their knows about.

I was never indoctrinated into the Marxist ant colony. Please tell me which definition of Greenhouse Effect you personally find to be most spiritually uplifting and I will gladly explain how it violates the physics that you were never taught over there.


Spot, I can't tell you just how good it is to have you return to this forum. It just pickles me tink. Why were you away for so long?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
31-08-2019 15:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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.
31-08-2019 16:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
31-08-2019 16:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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.


.


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.


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.
31-08-2019 18:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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.

... and yet Global Warming is no nearer to having anything to do with atmospheric physics.

So, when you were indoctrinated into the colony, what sort of blunt instruments did they use to "answer" your questions?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
31-08-2019 20:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-08-2019 20:36
31-08-2019 22:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

You may have been joking Spot but you nailed it! BOTH ITN and IBdaMann think that primary textbooks in Physics have been corrupted by warmazombies in teaching the fundamentals of thermodynamics.

Now they have nothing to back this up other than statements but that is their posisition. I asked IBdaMann why he trusted the Stefan-Boltzman law and what text book he trusted. Predictably he refuses, as does ITN, to identify ANY trusted source (because no one shares their particular delusion about the 2nd LTD):

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.

Isn't that just too funny! I can see IBdaMann now, learning some science on the streets from some guy, and then shuffling off to his backyard lab to confirm that Stefan-Boltzmann Law, text book free! DIY Style!
Of course we'll never see any actual lab work from these guys. They have never, in the history of this board presented anything concrete at all.
The problem on radiation of a person in a room neither of them will touch was from a text book and dismissed as such:
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....

With nothing to back anything up but platitudes.
No data, no research, nothing empirical, nothing at all.
Page 14 of 17<<<1213141516>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy1921-09-2019 17:04
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact