Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 16 of 17<<<14151617>
09-09-2019 00:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:How IBD is maintain body temperature right now

Not repeatable. Try again.

You repeat it every day.
You are repeating it now.

Well then, if I'm repeating right now your repeatable example then I'm not getting the results you specified.

Your theory is false.


.


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
09-09-2019 11:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:the results you specified.

And what do you have down as the results I specified?
09-09-2019 19:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:questions that have already been answered.
You never even tried liar.
IBdaMann wrote:
provide a repeatable instance of thermal radiation flowing from a cooler body to a body of higher temperature?
Right here How IBD is maintain body temperature right now


Repetitious lie, Repetitious denial of physics.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:How IBD is maintain body temperature right now

Not repeatable. Try again.

You repeat it every day.
You are repeating it now.


Repeating what? Random data used in a math equation??? No, dude. That is YOU doing that.
Contextomy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.

IBdaMann doesn't use random values in math equations like you do.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-09-2019 19:35
09-09-2019 19:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the results you specified.

And what do you have down as the results I specified?


Paradox. You are denying your own results???


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 20:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the results you specified.

And what do you have down as the results I specified?

This is pointless. You don't know what "repeatable" means.

Dismissed.


.


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
09-09-2019 21:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the results you specified.

And what do you have down as the results I specified?

Paradox. You are denying your own results???

It's clear IBD is pretending to be confused about what I claim the results of a person's thermodynamics in a room to be.

Oh and ITN NOTHING prevents you from calculating human heat loss properly
09-09-2019 21:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know what "repeatable" means.
.

Aparently you don't know your own private definition as you have yet to share it.
Bluff called
09-09-2019 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the results you specified.

And what do you have down as the results I specified?

Paradox. You are denying your own results???

It's clear IBD is pretending to be confused about what I claim the results of a person's thermodynamics in a room to be.

Oh and ITN NOTHING prevents you from calculating human heat loss properly


Lie. Redefinition fallacy (light<->heat). Repetitious question already answered.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 22:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know what "repeatable" means.
.

Aparently you don't know your own private definition as you have yet to share it.
Bluff called


Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 22:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and ITN NOTHING prevents you from calculating human heat loss properly

Lie. Redefinition fallacy (light<->heat). Repetitious question already answered.
Then go ahead and do it right Mr. Science. Should be easy for you.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know what "repeatable" means.
.

Aparently you don't know...

Try English. It works better.

OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?
09-09-2019 23:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?

I would be inclined to answer that if it weren't going to be ignored.


Shouldn't you be assigning some absurd position to me that I don't have right about now?


.


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
10-09-2019 01:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?

I would be inclined to answer that if it weren't going to be ignored.

Shouldn't you be assigning some absurd position to me that I don't have right about now?
.

Really that sums up the only position you've ever had on here IBD. You're simply here to stop people from thinking and discussing things. You are the antithesis of inquisitive. Your role here, along with ITN, is the suppression of thought.
10-09-2019 02:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and ITN NOTHING prevents you from calculating human heat loss properly

Lie. Redefinition fallacy (light<->heat). Repetitious question already answered.
Then go ahead and do it right Mr. Science. Should be easy for you.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know what "repeatable" means.
.

Aparently you don't know...

Try English. It works better.

OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?


Inane question.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 02:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?

I would be inclined to answer that if it weren't going to be ignored.

Shouldn't you be assigning some absurd position to me that I don't have right about now?
.

Really that sums up the only position you've ever had on here IBD. You're simply here to stop people from thinking and discussing things. You are the antithesis of inquisitive. Your role here, along with ITN, is the suppression of thought.


Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 02:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?

Inane question.


You both claim that a human being in a 70F room is not repeatable. THAT is just insane. No explanation has been offered by either of you.
10-09-2019 02:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
OK ITN what does IBD, or you, mean by repeatable?

Inane question.


You both claim that a human being in a 70F room is not repeatable. THAT is just insane. No explanation has been offered by either of you.


Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 03:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Void argument fallacy.
I was dumb enough to google that. You're the only one who's ever said it.

In keeping with the ITN/IBD Pretend Reality Is What You Want It To Be
10-09-2019 03:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Void argument fallacy.
I was dumb enough to google that.

God is not spelled 'Google'.
tmiddles wrote:
You're the only one who's ever said it.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
In keeping with the ITN/IBD Pretend Reality Is What You Want It To Be

Buzzword fallacy. YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 03:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You're the only one who's ever said it.

Lie.
just you nutso

Maybe you should make your own personal dictionary to go with IBDs Manual. Flesh out the crazy man's library.
10-09-2019 04:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You're the only one who's ever said it.

Lie.
just you nutso

Maybe you should make your own personal dictionary to go with IBDs Manual. Flesh out the crazy man's library.


You know you might actually try to make an argument once in a while, just to break things up you understand.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 06:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
You know you might actually try to make an argument once in a while

You just miss them. That is an argument. You are making your own definitions for word at odds with the rest of humanity. So they are quite useless in that respect. Words only work when both parties know what they mean.

Make new words if you want to make new definitions.

Like it or not language is absolutely and unavoidable a matter of consensus.
10-09-2019 07:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You know you might actually try to make an argument once in a while

You just miss them. That is an argument.

Not an argument. A void.
tmiddles wrote:
You are making your own definitions for word at odds with the rest of humanity.

No, you are just not using English anymore.
tmiddles wrote:
So they are quite useless in that respect. Words only work when both parties know what they mean.

Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
Make new words if you want to make new definitions.

No need. You might try using English, though. Liberal has too many words that are undefined or mean different things depending on context.
tmiddles wrote:
Like it or not language is absolutely and unavoidable a matter of consensus.

One you apparently will have no part of.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 07:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:...Liberal has too many words....

Hmmmm. I wouldn't go making bumper stickers with that.

The fact is that every language is collaborative. If people are confused by what you mean with your words, and you've done that on purpose, you're simply being a pest.
Edited on 10-09-2019 07:55
11-09-2019 23:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
ITN,
CO2 does slow down the movement of radiation back through the atmosphere.
Consider the speed of light in a vacuum. Then consider the speed of light through water. I would bet you realize that the speed of light through water is slower than the speed of light through a vacuum. The reason for this is because the water molecules absorb the light energy and the reradiate it. There is a delay in this reradiation. This delay is why the speed of light in water is slower than the SOL in a vacuum. That is what happens when infrared is radiated back toward space from the earth. It is slowed down.
11-09-2019 23:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
CO2 does slow down the movement of radiation back through the atmosphere.
[quote]keepit wrote:
Consider the speed of light in a vacuum. Then consider the speed of light through water. I would bet you realize that the speed of light through water is slower than the speed of light through a vacuum. The reason for this is because the water molecules absorb the light energy and the reradiate it. There is a delay in this reradiation. This delay is why the speed of light in water is slower than the SOL in a vacuum. That is what happens when infrared is radiated back toward space from the earth. It is slowed down.


But not trapped or reduced. The time in transit is different by microseconds.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-09-2019 23:28
11-09-2019 23:38
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
There's a lot of molecules and that adds up to a lot of delays. Some of that radiation get radiated back to earth and the whole process begins again with even more delays, etc.

Meanwhile the sunshine keeps pouring in.
Edited on 11-09-2019 23:52
12-09-2019 00:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
There's a lot of molecules and that adds up to a lot of delays. Some of that radiation get radiated back to earth and the whole process begins again with even more delays, etc.

Meanwhile the sunshine keeps pouring in.


You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. There is no 'process'. There is no effective delay.

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote:That is what happens when infrared is radiated back toward space from the earth. It is slowed down.

Nope. That does not happen.

Are you trying to claim that Earth's thermal radiance is reduced by particular gases in the atmosphere?


.


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
12-09-2019 01:56
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
What is thermal radiance?
12-09-2019 02:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote:
What is thermal radiance?

It's what you are claiming is being "slowed."


.


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
12-09-2019 02:13
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
You're going around in circles.
12-09-2019 02:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote:
You're going around in circles.

You're stating with certainty something about which you clearly know nothing. Why?




[a n s w e r : r e l i g i o u s d o g m a ]



.


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
12-09-2019 02:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
Oh, come on now.
You're the one that used a phrase that isn't in wiki.
12-09-2019 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
What is thermal radiance?


It is the light that is emitted due to temperature (so-called blackbody radiance).

It is also not the only way to emit light.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 02:40
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
ITN,
I get your definition. Wiki calls it thermal radiation and also uses thermal flux, the amount of thermal radiation per unit area per unit time.
If that is what you are talking about then yes, thermal flux (radiation per time) of infrared is decreased by CO2.
12-09-2019 02:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote:
Oh, come on now.
You're the one that used a phrase that isn't in wiki.

I don't advocate the use of Wikipedia.

I actively advocate the avoidance of Wikipedia.


.


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
12-09-2019 04:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I get your definition. Wiki calls it thermal radiation and also uses thermal flux, the amount of thermal radiation per unit area per unit time.
If that is what you are talking about then yes, thermal flux (radiation per time) of infrared is decreased by CO2.


Wiki is not a valid reference for anything.

* It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).
* You cannot trap light (Planck's law).

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 15:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
What is thermal radiance?

It's what you are claiming is being "slowed."
.

Keep it,
IBD can't even tell you what happens to the radiance from the room he's in when it hits his own skin.

ITN/IBD have entirely manufactured "laws" of science that can be found nowhere else. (The first 5 textbook I found contradict them)

link
IBdaMann wrote:
No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.


It all hinges on the entirely unfounded belief that radiance cannot be absorbed for some reason by a warmer body when it comes from a cooler one (no explanation has been provided)

You water example is a very good one.
12-09-2019 17:19
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
What is thermal radiance?

It's what you are claiming is being "slowed."
.

Keep it,
IBD can't even tell you what happens to the radiance from the room he's in when it hits his own skin.

He's already told you. Stop lying.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD have entirely manufactured "laws" of science that can be found nowhere else. (The first 5 textbook I found contradict them)

link

They didn't manufacture them. Take a look at them for yourself. They aren't hidden in a secret vault or anything.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

IBdaMann is correct.

tmiddles wrote:
It all hinges on the entirely unfounded belief that radiance cannot be absorbed for some reason by a warmer body when it comes from a cooler one (no explanation has been provided)

Lie. Explanations have been provided to you.

Heat cannot flow from cold to hot. It can only flow from hot to cold. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for reference.

A body of a lower energy state does not have sufficient energy to be absorbed by a body of a higher energy state. See Planck's Law for reference.
Page 16 of 17<<<14151617>





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