Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 17 of 19<<<1516171819>
12-09-2019 18:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
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.

Ah the Trump tactic: repeat the lie. Quote it and prove me wrong.

gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD have entirely manufactured "laws" of science that can be found nowhere else. (The first 5 textbook I found contradict them)
They didn't manufacture them. Take a look at them for yourself..

You haven't looked have you? You've never actually cracked open a textbook covering thermodynamics.
I've quoted 5 and 7 more sources link

gfm7175 wrote:
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.

And where did you find that?

Google search yields nothing
Edited on 12-09-2019 18:52
12-09-2019 19:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
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.

Ah the Trump tactic: repeat the lie. Quote it and prove me wrong.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD have entirely manufactured "laws" of science that can be found nowhere else. (The first 5 textbook I found contradict them)
They didn't manufacture them. Take a look at them for yourself..

You haven't looked have you? You've never actually cracked open a textbook covering thermodynamics.
I've quoted 5 and 7 more sources link

gfm7175 wrote:
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.

And where did you find that?

Google search yields nothing


Repetitious lies.

* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 21:19
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(196)
tmiddles wrote:
Ah the Trump tactic: repeat the lie. Quote it and prove me wrong.


tmiddles wrote:
And where did you find that?

Google search yields nothing


Same lies and whining.

I literally JUST told you where I got that from within the very comment you made this reply to. And you wonder why I am unwilling to dig through past posts to provide you with a quote that you are going to outright deny anyway...
Edited on 12-09-2019 21:20
12-09-2019 23:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
gfm7175 wrote:
I literally JUST told you where I got that from within the very comment you made this reply to.


Yes and you are literally wrong about there being a source for that strange statement. What on the dark web beyond Google's reach?

Neither Planck nor any source of instruction on the 2nd LTD will support your claims.

You guys made that up!
Edited on 12-09-2019 23:18
13-09-2019 00:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5034)
tmiddles wrote:Neither Planck nor any source of instruction on the 2nd LTD will support your claims.

Translation: There is no repeatable example supporting your claim ... and it's other people's fault.





.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
13-09-2019 00:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Neither Planck nor any source of instruction on the 2nd LTD will support your claims.

Translation: There is no repeatable example supporting your claim ... and it's other people's fault.

You're just goofing off because your goal is to sabotage debate.

You in a room maintaining body temp proves your weird theory wrong every time. Because without absorbing the radiance from the room it's the equivalent of your being in deep space. You can't make your calculation work so you dodge it.

And you have never given an example of anything you find to be useable as data or an experiment. You disqualify everything.
Edited on 13-09-2019 00:30
13-09-2019 03:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Neither Planck nor any source of instruction on the 2nd LTD will support your claims.

Translation: There is no repeatable example supporting your claim ... and it's other people's fault.

You're just goofing off because your goal is to sabotage debate.

You in a room maintaining body temp proves your weird theory wrong every time. Because without absorbing the radiance from the room it's the equivalent of your being in deep space. You can't make your calculation work so you dodge it.

And you have never given an example of anything you find to be useable as data or an experiment. You disqualify everything.


YALIF. Repetitious questions already answered. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 03:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
YALIF.
dead wood. Disrespectful indiscriminant quoting and nothing messages. The censor pouring sand on the board.
13-09-2019 05:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
YALIF.
dead wood. Disrespectful indiscriminant quoting and nothing messages. The censor pouring sand on the board.


YALIF. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 23:44
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I literally JUST told you where I got that from within the very comment you made this reply to.


Yes and you are literally wrong about there being a source for that strange statement. What on the dark web beyond Google's reach?

Neither Planck nor any source of instruction on the 2nd LTD will support your claims.

You guys made that up!


Planck:

"the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost's principle)."

https://archive.org/details/theoryofheatradi00planrich/page/6

Prevosts principle:

"Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state."

Will you now make an argument that the atmosphere is part of the surface internal state? That's impossible, isn't it?

So, according to Planck and Prevost the surface emission does NOT depend on the atmosphere, because it's external.

On the next page:

"A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B' at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B' is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B' a stronger emitter than A."

Here Planck clearly says that a cold body cools a warm body. Not a single word about any warming by a cold body.

Just 5 minutes of reading in Plancks book (linked above) would have been enough to understand that no greenhouse effect can exist, because that's on page 6&7. But I guess nobody in the climate cult spent 5 minutes reading Planck. They're more fond of making shit up.

About that example with heat loss from a human body, set the wall temperature of the room to 3K to make it similar to surface-atmosphere-space. Then the heat loss isn't 100W anymore.

A steady state energy balance must have the sum of the parts equal to heat source power. So, per m² of heat input into a surface emitting σ288⁴, and transferring heat through it to emission from 4πr²:

TSI=1360.8W/m²=σ288⁴+4σ255⁴

A steady state is time independent, all emitting parts must be supplied with heat from the source instantaneously. Just look at any description of steady state energy balance in heat transfer.

And pay attention to the fact that energy balances in steady state heat transfer are equations, not crayon drawings with colorful arrows like Trenberth's(linked below) which doesn't even have a full steady state equation. Which, BTW, shows 90W/m² more emission than a perfect blackbody for the atmosphere (333W/m²), which is a violation of the SB-law that gives 240W/m² maximum for a 255K atmosphere.

https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+budget+of+earth&hl=sv&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz6vf6s73lAhX2xcQBHRwpAksQ_AUoAXoECA4QAQ&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=3#imgrc=cP2CngWUx1oxrM

The GHE is pathetic.
Edited on 27-10-2019 23:51
28-10-2019 00:07
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
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.


The definition of heat is the energy in transfer from hot to cold. So whatever is radiated back to earth, it's not transferring heat. Because the atmosphere is cold. The second law says that heat only transfers from hot to cold, and any transfer in opposite direction can only be in the form of work. The GHE doesn't include work. So, from the atmosphere to the surface there's no transfer of heat and there's no transferred energy as work.

The first law, ∆U=Q-W, says that only heat and work can raise temperature. Which means that even if there exists "backradiation", it's neither heat or work, and it can't raise temperature. Important fact: backradiation has never been measured in a lab.
28-10-2019 00:11
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
eheat,
There's a lot of confusion about this issue of greenhouse gasses.
They slow the transfer of thermal energy from the earth to outer space. Meanwhile the sunlight keeps pouring in. The net effect is an increase in temperature so that the earth can radiate as much thermal energy as it receives.
28-10-2019 01:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5034)
keepit wrote: eheat,
There's a lot of confusion about this issue of greenhouse gasses.

There is no confusion. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" outside of your religion.

keepit wrote:They slow the transfer of thermal energy from the earth to outer space.

Thermal energy can only exist within matter. Thermal energy cannot be transferred to outer space. Thermal energy cannot be transferred to a vacuum.

keepit wrote: Meanwhile the sunlight keeps pouring in. The net effect is an increase in temperature so that the earth can radiate as much thermal energy as it receives.

Physics says that what you just wrote here is nonsense that simply isn't possible. What you wrote is Global Warming religious dogma. I realize you profoundly believe in this miracle that you described but it's not possible and it's not happening.

Just for your edification, Stefan-Boltzmann elucidates how you can't have an increase in temperature with a corresponding decrease in radiance. The only way to "slow" earth's radiance is to DECREASE the temperature.

This is the problem with Global Warming dogma ... it runs counter to physics. It targets the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
28-10-2019 01:55
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
I should have used the word "radiant energy" coming off of the greenhouse gasses. Same idea though. Greenhouse gasses slow the energy leaving the earth and the atmosphere heats up because the sun keeps pouring sunlight into the earth.

It's like this -- radiant energy comes off the earth and causes the greenhouse gasses to gain thermal energy which then radiate energy in all directions,. Some of this radiant energy escapes to outer space.

Sunlight heats up the earth and the atmosphere and the greenhouse gasses slow the dissipation of that energy. Net effect: increasing temp of the atmosphere and earth.
Edited on 28-10-2019 02:36
28-10-2019 03:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5034)
keepit wrote:
I should have used the word "radiant energy" coming off of the greenhouse gasses.

I presumed that is what you meant. It is not possible.

How do you imagine that energy is "slowed"? You know that you haven't the vaguest idea what you are supposed to mean by that. You know that light won't be slowed below its present speed of light. You know that the energy cannot be "reduced" without reducing the earth's temperature or violating the first law of thermodynamics.

What exactly are you trying to get people to believe?




Same idea though. Greenhouse gasses slow the energy leaving the earth and the atmosphere heats up because the sun keeps pouring sunlight into the earth.

It's like this -- radiant energy comes off the earth and causes the greenhouse gasses to gain thermal energy which then radiate energy in all directions,. Some of this radiant energy escapes to outer space.

Sunlight heats up the earth and the atmosphere and the greenhouse gasses slow the dissipation of that energy. Net effect: increasing temp of the atmosphere and earth.[/quote]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
28-10-2019 03:51
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
IBDM,
The slowing isn't the slowing of the speed of light. It takes time for the infrared energy to be absorbed and then reradiated from the greenhouse gasses.
That is the slowing, it isn't the speed of light that is slowed.

I didn't say a single thing about slowing the speed of light. The slowing of the speed of light is just you talking.
Edited on 28-10-2019 03:53
28-10-2019 05:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5034)
keepit wrote:It takes time for the infrared energy to be absorbed and then reradiated from the greenhouse gasses.

The absorption and emission is always instantaneous. Emission is always at the rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann which is solely determined by the temperature. There is no substance whatsoever that alters this.

The infrared frequency emitted is not the infrared frequency absorbed. If you are using the word "re-radiated" then you are wrong.

If you wouldn't mind trying again, what do you believe is "slowed" and what do you think you mean by it? Keep in mind that any reduction in earth's radiance needs to be accompanied by a reduction in earth's temperature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
28-10-2019 17:22
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
I didn't know there was anything that is instantaneous but i suppose there could be.
Nevertheless, the bouncing around of the infrared radiation in the atmosphere takes time. The speed of light isn't instantaneous.
I didn't know that the bouncing around of the infrared reduced the freq of the infrared a small bit but if it does, then that energy goes to something.
28-10-2019 17:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5034)
keepit wrote: I didn't know there was anything that is instantaneous but i suppose there could be.

Well, now you know. There is no substance that "slows" this process.

keepit wrote: Nevertheless, the bouncing around of the infrared radiation in the atmosphere takes time.

... and that is completely immaterial. The earth's radiance does not decrease except for a decrease in earth's temperature.

keepit wrote: The speed of light isn't instantaneous.

The speed of light is a rate of speed, not an amount of time.

keepit wrote: I didn't know that the bouncing around of the infrared reduced the freq of the infrared a small bit but if it does, then that energy goes to something.

The photon that is absorbed is of whatever frequency it is, but the photon emitted is based on the temperature of the body, i.e. nothing is "re-radiated."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
28-10-2019 18:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
IBDM,
Misinterpreting isn't a valid method of argument. It's not credible.
For example, i didn't say anything about the speed of light being an amount of time yet that was your interpretation when i pointed out that since c isn't instantaneous, it would take time for em radiation to bounce around the atmosphere. You interpret that fact to mean that greenhouse gasses don't delay the radiation of infrared to outer space. They do delay the radiation of IR until which time that the earth and the atmosphere warm up enough to radiate as much energy out as it is taking in.
28-10-2019 18:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
eheat wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I literally JUST told you where I got that from within the very comment you made this reply to.


Yes and you are literally wrong about there being a source for that strange statement. What on the dark web beyond Google's reach?

Neither Planck nor any source of instruction on the 2nd LTD will support your claims.

You guys made that up!


Planck:

"the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost's principle)."

https://archive.org/details/theoryofheatradi00planrich/page/6

Prevosts principle:

"Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state."

Will you now make an argument that the atmosphere is part of the surface internal state? That's impossible, isn't it?

So, according to Planck and Prevost the surface emission does NOT depend on the atmosphere, because it's external.

On the next page:

"A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B' at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B' is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B' a stronger emitter than A."

Here Planck clearly says that a cold body cools a warm body. Not a single word about any warming by a cold body.


False equivalence fallacy. B is not B'. Planck is making no such claim that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-10-2019 18:32
28-10-2019 18:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
eheat wrote:
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.


The definition of heat is the energy in transfer from hot to cold. So whatever is radiated back to earth, it's not transferring heat. Because the atmosphere is cold. The second law says that heat only transfers from hot to cold, and any transfer in opposite direction can only be in the form of work. The GHE doesn't include work. So, from the atmosphere to the surface there's no transfer of heat and there's no transferred energy as work.

The first law, ∆U=Q-W, says that only heat and work can raise temperature. Which means that even if there exists "backradiation", it's neither heat or work, and it can't raise temperature. Important fact: backradiation has never been measured in a lab.

Radiance is not heat. It is light. It is only a method of heating if, and only if, the light is actually absorbed by something, AND that absorption results in an increase of thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
eheat,
There's a lot of confusion about this issue of greenhouse gasses.
They slow the transfer of thermal energy from the earth to outer space. Meanwhile the sunlight keeps pouring in. The net effect is an increase in temperature so that the earth can radiate as much thermal energy as it receives.


* You cannot slow or trap heat. Absorption and emission is instantaneous.
* You cannot trap light. Everything that is above absolute zero emits light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat, and there is always light.
* You cannot warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot heat a warm object with a cold one.
* There is no sequence. Absorption and emission is instantaneous.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:41
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
I thought radiance was radiant flux, in other words a rate.
The infra red radiation is absorbed by something, namely the greenhouse gasses, which slow the radiant flux.
Then the atmosphere heats up as the sun keeps pouring in energy. That is the slowing that you are denying.
Edited on 28-10-2019 18:44
28-10-2019 18:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
I should have used the word "radiant energy" coming off of the greenhouse gasses. Same idea though. Greenhouse gasses slow the energy leaving the earth and the atmosphere heats up because the sun keeps pouring sunlight into the earth.

* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
keepit wrote:
It's like this -- radiant energy comes off the earth and causes the greenhouse gasses to gain thermal energy which then radiate energy in all directions,. Some of this radiant energy escapes to outer space.
* You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
[quote]keepit wrote:
Sunlight heats up the earth and the atmosphere and the greenhouse gasses slow the dissipation of that energy.

* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
keepit wrote:
Net effect: increasing temp of the atmosphere and earth.


Not possible.

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you are denying, does not have a frequency term. The 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are denying, does not allow you to create energy out of nothing or destroy energy into nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are denying, does not allow you to decrease entropy in any system. You cannot 'trap heat' or 'trap thermal energy' or 'trap light' and thus reduce entropy between the upper and lower atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
I didn't know there was anything that is instantaneous but i suppose there could be.
Nevertheless, the bouncing around of the infrared radiation in the atmosphere takes time. The speed of light isn't instantaneous.
I didn't know that the bouncing around of the infrared reduced the freq of the infrared a small bit but if it does, then that energy goes to something.


This is the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
ITN,
You have one misinterpretation after another.
Also, would you not put your statements in with my statements without clearly showing that your statements are not my statement.
Youcan slow the transfer of energy from earth to outer space. You keep saying you can't but you're wrong.
28-10-2019 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Misinterpreting isn't a valid method of argument. It's not credible.

Then you should stop misinterpreting.
keepit wrote:
For example, i didn't say anything about the speed of light being an amount of time
Yes you did.
keepit wrote:
yet that was your interpretation when i pointed out that since c isn't instantaneous, it would take time for em radiation to bounce around the atmosphere.
It doesn't 'bounce around the atmosphere'. It doesn't bounce.
keepit wrote:
You interpret that fact to mean that greenhouse gasses don't delay the radiation of infrared to outer space.
They don't. They can't. Absorption and emission are instantaneous.
keepit wrote:
They do delay the radiation of IR
They don't. They can't.
keepit wrote:
until which time that the earth and the atmosphere warm up enough to radiate as much energy out as it is taking in.

There is no sequence. You can't suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law for even a moment in time.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
I thought radiance was radiant flux, in other words a rate.
The infra red radiation is absorbed by something, namely the greenhouse gasses, which slow the radiant flux.
Then the atmosphere heats up as the sun keeps pouring in energy. That is the slowing that you are denying.

There is no sequence. You cannot suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law for even a moment of time.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You have one misinterpretation after another.
Also, would you not put your statements in with my statements without clearly showing that your statements are not my statement.
Youcan slow the transfer of energy from earth to outer space. You keep saying you can't but you're wrong.


No, you cannot slow the transfer of energy from anywhere to anywhere. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap or slow heat.

You are attempting to temporarily suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law in order to build up the temperature of Earth. You can't do that. There is no sequence.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 18:56
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
ITN,
You say there is no sequence but there is a sequence - namely the IR hits a GHG molecule, the energy then moves at the speed of light to another GHG molecule, and so on until it is finally emitted into outer space.
I didn't say the speed of light was an amount of time - show me the quote that you think i said that. You misinterpreted.

By the way, bouncing photons is a legitimate concept. I assume you've learned about Feynman diagrams (Richard Feynman).
I saw a lecture given by Richard Feynman when he was young talking about science being a set of falsifiable theories. I don't know if he talked about that before Karl Popper or after.
Edited on 28-10-2019 19:03
28-10-2019 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You say there is no sequence but there is a sequence -

There is no sequence. You can't suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law for even a moment of time.
keepit wrote:
namely the IR hits a GHG molecule, the energy then moves at the speed of light to another GHG molecule, and so on until it is finally emitted into outer space.

No. It does not need to hit molecule after molecule. Most emitted IR from the surface is emitted directly into space.
keepit wrote:
I didn't say the speed of light was an amount of time -
show me the quote that you think i said that. You misinterpreted.

Yes you did. You did it again right here in your post.
keepit wrote:
By the way, bouncing photons is a legitimate concept.[quote]keepit wrote:
I assume you've learned about Feynman diagrams (Richard Feynman).

No. They do not bounce. They are not rubber balls. They are not all the same.


The Parrot Killer
28-10-2019 20:29
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
The bouncing and the rubber balls are figures of speech but good for learning the concept (if you're willing to learn).
It's true that not all IR hits GHG's, but enough does to have the effect of greenhouse warming.
Much misinterpretation. You seem to do well regarding aviation though.
You still haven't quoted me on the speed of light which tells me that you have another misinterpretation.
Do you really think i believe a speed (c) is a time? Come on, get real.
Edited on 28-10-2019 20:35
28-10-2019 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
The bouncing and the rubber balls are figures of speech but good for learning the concept (if you're willing to learn).

Not even good for that. They are nothing like rubber balls.
keepit wrote:
It's true that not all IR hits GHG's,

Paradox. Which is it it, dude?
keepit wrote:
but enough does to have the effect of greenhouse warming.

No. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't suspend any law of physics for even a moment. There is no sequence.
keepit wrote:
Much misinterpretation.

Yes, by you.
keepit wrote:
You seem to do well regarding aviation though.
Of course.
keepit wrote:
You still haven't quoted me on the speed of light which tells me that you have another misinterpretation.

RQAA.
keepit wrote:
Do you really think i believe a speed (c) is a time? Come on, get real.

Speed is a change of position over time. It has no other definition (other than as a colloquial name for a class of drugs).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-10-2019 21:23
28-10-2019 22:15
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
I like the song that says, "Who died and made you king of anything??"
28-10-2019 22:19
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
ITN,
You're the one that brought up the bouncing balls thing.
29-10-2019 04:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You're the one that brought up the bouncing balls thing.

No, that was you.


The Parrot Killer
29-10-2019 05:43
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
ITN,
Do you remember the "Magick Bouncing Photon" post that you made?
It has the 1845 time stamp today.
I'm still not clear on where you think i said that one about time and speed.
Edited on 29-10-2019 05:47
29-10-2019 15:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5034)
keepit wrote:I'm still not clear on where you think i said that one about time and speed.

You started the line of illogic with this:

keepit wrote:The speed of light isn't instantaneous.

The speed of light is a speed.

"instantaneous" is a quantity of time, i.e. an extremely short one.

What kind of response do you imagine would be fitting?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
29-10-2019 16:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(716)
Maybe the confusion here about this that it is IR energy that is heating the GHG's and not a cooler mass that is heating the GHG's.

To me the sentence "the speed of light isn't instantaneous" is not confusing. Is there a problem accepting Einstein's theory of relativity.
Page 17 of 19<<<1516171819>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface2020-10-2019 23:41
Election Law3208-10-2019 13:02
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
▲ 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