Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 18 of 19<<<16171819>
29-10-2019 17:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote:To me the sentence "the speed of light isn't instantaneous" is not confusing. Is there a problem accepting Einstein's theory of relativity.

Your sentence makes no sense. It is equivalent to "The speed of the blue Honda is not 13 minutes."

A speed is not a quantity of time. The word "instantaneous" refers to an extremely (imperceptibly) short period of time. An instantaneous event refers an event that occurs over an imperceptibly short period of time.

When infrared becomes incident to a body, its "absorption" is instantaneous. The increase in temperature so produced is instantaneous. The resulting emission of thermal radiation is instantaneous. This means that the total amount of time required for all of that to occur, while technically not zero, is so small that it has to be treated as zero. Even if the context is "an entire planet" that is receiving energy from a star, you have to treat these events as ocurring over zero time.

.


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 18:00
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
No need to argue over the speed of light issue.

The time issue isn't as important as the issue of whether IR can heat an object. I suppose a cooler mass can't heat a warmer mass but infrared can heat a mass.
I don't think radiation has a temp, more accurately radiation causes a temperature.

It seems to me that the GHG's are receiving both energy from the IR and kinetic energy from each other. In other words a molecule of GHG is heated up because of IR and a thusly heated up molecule imparts kinetic energy to other GHG molecules.
Edited on 29-10-2019 18:16
29-10-2019 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
No need to argue over the speed of light issue.

The time issue isn't as important as the issue of whether IR can heat an object. I suppose a cooler mass can't heat a warmer mass but infrared can heat a mass.
I don't think radiation has a temp, more accurately radiation causes a temperature.

It seems to me that the GHG's are receiving both energy from the IR and kinetic energy from each other. In other words a molecule of GHG is heated up because of IR and a thusly heated up molecule imparts kinetic energy to other GHG molecules.


Did you forget the surface is cooled by emitting infrared light?

Absorption by CO2 of infrared light does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. It is cooled by this process.


The Parrot Killer
29-10-2019 21:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
I don't think i forgot that the earth loses energy when it gives up energy.
Both the earth and the CO2 (and atmosphere) are warmed by IR.
The net effect of these is a warming of the earth's temp and atmosphere up to the point where the earth and the atmosphere can give up as much energy as it receives.
29-10-2019 22:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
keepit wrote:
I don't think i forgot that the earth loses energy when it gives up energy.
Both the earth and the CO2 (and atmosphere) are warmed by IR.
The net effect of these is a warming of the earth's temp and atmosphere up to the point where the earth and the atmosphere can give up as much energy as it receives.



Are you aware that the brightest minds don't realize that when the belt is buckled that it's warmer?
For me it's funny. Science would be cool if people understood it.
And we're back to why does stratospheric cooling equal global warming/climate change?
Со мной, Я хочу знать. Avec moi, je veux savoir.
Of course a singular perspective is better. And in the US warming over terra firma is basically unchanged for a few years.
30-10-2019 01:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
I don't think i forgot that the earth loses energy when it gives up energy.
Both the earth and the CO2 (and atmosphere) are warmed by IR.
The net effect of these is a warming of the earth's temp and atmosphere up to the point where the earth and the atmosphere can give up as much energy as it receives.


Fine. How is CO2 involved? If the Sun's output is the same, how is that warming the Earth even more just because of CO2?


The Parrot Killer
30-10-2019 01:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't think i forgot that the earth loses energy when it gives up energy.
Both the earth and the CO2 (and atmosphere) are warmed by IR.
The net effect of these is a warming of the earth's temp and atmosphere up to the point where the earth and the atmosphere can give up as much energy as it receives.



Are you aware that the brightest minds don't realize that when the belt is buckled that it's warmer?
For me it's funny. Science would be cool if people understood it.
And we're back to why does stratospheric cooling equal global warming/climate change?
Со мной, Я хочу знать. Avec moi, je veux savoir.
Of course a singular perspective is better. And in the US warming over terra firma is basically unchanged for a few years.

* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
30-10-2019 01:53
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
ITN,
The CO2 slows the transfer of energy from the earth to outer space.
More energy comes in. than goes out (due to the slowed outflow).
Edited on 30-10-2019 02:16
30-10-2019 04:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't think i forgot that the earth loses energy when it gives up energy.
Both the earth and the CO2 (and atmosphere) are warmed by IR.
The net effect of these is a warming of the earth's temp and atmosphere up to the point where the earth and the atmosphere can give up as much energy as it receives.



Are you aware that the brightest minds don't realize that when the belt is buckled that it's warmer?
For me it's funny. Science would be cool if people understood it.
And we're back to why does stratospheric cooling equal global warming/climate change?
Со мной, Я хочу знать. Avec moi, je veux savoir.
Of course a singular perspective is better. And in the US warming over terra firma is basically unchanged for a few years.

* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.



GasGuzzler and I b notdamann found out through advanced scientific research that eating fewer beans and pulling fewer fingers reduces ghg emissions attributted to non-specific methane emissions.
30-10-2019 09:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
The CO2 slows the transfer of energy from the earth to outer space.

CO2 does not have that ability.
keepit wrote:
More energy comes in. than goes out (due to the slowed outflow).

* You cannot reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.
* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-10-2019 09:35
30-10-2019 16:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote:ITN,
The CO2 slows the transfer of energy from the earth to outer space.
More energy comes in. than goes out (due to the slowed outflow).

Are you familiar with the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Are you familiar with the term "equilibrium"?

.


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
30-10-2019 19:35
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
Boring.
01-11-2019 14:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
eheat wrote:...the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state.
So this means that the radiance from an object is determined solely by the thermal energy within the object. Doesn't matter if something else is going on outside the object, it emits based on it's internal state. Right?
BUT: It's internal state can be effected by things external to the object.

So if there are two steel plates A and B, and A is much hotter than B, and they're an inch apart. B will ONLY emit radiance based on it's internal state, based on the thermal energy it has. BUT: B is of course going to be gaining thermal energy as it absorbs radiance from A. But there is an order of events. First you absorb, then you emit.

So your conclusion:
eheat wrote:So, according to Planck and Prevost the surface emission does NOT depend on the atmosphere, because it's external.
Is wrong. By interpreting it that way you're basically saying that an object is magically unaffected by other objects.

eheat wrote:
"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.
That's because "warming" and "heat" refer to an increase in the grand total of thermal energy. You bet that the radiance from B at 0◦ C is absorbed by A, as is the the radiance from A absorbed by B'. "WARMING" and "HEAT" refer to the NET effect.

Really nice citations by the way! Seriously. You got is wrong but nice finds.

eheat wrote: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.
So you're going to just Dodge that grade school text book problem? Come on man you can do it! I believe in you.

eheat wrote:
steady state ...σ288⁴+4σ255⁴.... time independent,
Whaaa?

How about a real world example. That made no sense to me.

eheat wrote:
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.
True, it's still transferring radiance though and it does get turned into thermal energy. Thermal energy moves in all directions. Don't confuse "thermal energy" with meaning what "heat" means. That's like confusing "Money" with "Profits". They are related by have distinct meanings.

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.
Well said keepit
Though any atmosphere has this effect as seen in all of our measurements of planets with and without them.

IBdaMann wrote:
The absorption and emission is always instantaneous.
Not it's not. Thermal energy flows through matter. It's not a law of the universe that everything is always in thermal equilibrium.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
01-11-2019 15:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote: So your conclusion:
eheat wrote:So, according to Planck and Prevost the surface emission does NOT depend on the atmosphere, because it's external.
Is wrong.

You are correct. His conclusion is wrong because the atmosphere is part of the earth, it is not external to the earth.

tmiddles wrote: By interpreting it that way you're basically saying that an object is magically unaffected by other objects.

Incorrect. Bodies are certainly affected by other bodies. It's just that you can't make a body defy physics by pretending there is another imaginary body through which you get to create needed additional calculations to make your violation "work."

tmiddles wrote: That's because "warming" and "heat" refer to an increase in the grand total of thermal energy. ...[snip] ... "WARMING" and "HEAT" refer to the NET effect.

Sure. Of course. Let's take a look at a simple repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body a warmer body ... as a starting point.

Any repeatable example you want.

[prediction: I sense a non-repeatable example forthcoming]





tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The absorption and emission is always instantaneous.
Not it's not.

Yes, it most certainly is. How long do you claim it takes?

tmiddles wrote: Thermal energy flows through matter.

I hope you aren't just learning this now.

By the way, thermal energy exists only in matter.


tmiddles wrote: It's not a law of the universe that everything is always in thermal equilibrium.

Correct.

By the way, if you plan on using a science model that assumes a thermal equilibrium, then you have to assume a thermal equilibrium. I only mention that as a point of interest.

.


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
01-11-2019 16:54
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
Two ways to heat an object - kinetic energy and radiation. Maybe cooler object can't heat a warmer object but radiation can warm up an object.
01-11-2019 19:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote:Two ways to heat an object - kinetic energy and radiation. Maybe cooler object can't heat a warmer object but radiation can warm up an object.

When I take a stationary baseball and throw it at 60mph, adding a lot of kinetic energy, what is the baseball's temperature increase?

.


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
01-11-2019 20:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1474)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:Two ways to heat an object - kinetic energy and radiation. Maybe cooler object can't heat a warmer object but radiation can warm up an object.

When I take a stationary baseball and throw it at 60mph, adding a lot of kinetic energy, what is the baseball's temperature increase?

.


Hey, the announcer said that pitcher was throwing smoke. Now I get it!


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
01-11-2019 20:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
Two ways to heat an object - kinetic energy and radiation. Maybe cooler object can't heat a warmer object but radiation can warm up an object.


Radiance can warm an object if and only if the radiance from a warmer object is heating a cooler one.

You cannot reduce entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2019 20:30
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
If the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere, where does that energy go?
01-11-2019 20:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote:If the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere, where does that energy go?

You have to specify what IR.


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
01-11-2019 20:41
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
No i don't. It's a straightforward question.
01-11-2019 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:If the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere, where does that energy go?

You have to specify what IR.

No i don't. It's a straightforward question.

OK.

It goes in the direction it is traveling. There is your straightforward answer.


If you'd like to discuss how this applies to any specific IR, just specify some IR.


.


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
01-11-2019 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
No i don't. It's a straightforward question.


The IR band is a wide band. Which frequency are you interested in? They propagate differently.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2019 22:31
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
OK. I've heard of 3 or 4 categories (bands) of IR. You are the ones that seem to think they all escape without imparting energy to GHG's. Which ones are you talking about.
01-11-2019 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
OK. I've heard of 3 or 4 categories (bands) of IR. You are the ones that seem to think they all escape without imparting energy to GHG's. Which ones are you talking about.

There is only one band of IR.

The question is put to YOU. YOU are the one making the argument that none escape without imparting energy to what you call a 'greenhouse gas'.

Evasion. Answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-11-2019 22:36
01-11-2019 23:53
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
ITN,
You can check with Wikipedia if you like. It describe several bands and divisions of IR.
It was my question and it was put to you and IBDM. The time stamp is 20:30 today. It was not your question.
You are the one that is evading. You say that IR doesn't impart energy to GHG's but they do.

I didn't say that none of IR escapes. That is what you said.
Enough IR doesn't escape and that increases the temp of GHG's. That and some kinetic energy.
Edited on 01-11-2019 23:55
01-11-2019 23:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
IBDM,
You say the IR goes in the direction it is traveling. But I was asking where that energy goes if it isn't absorbed by GHG's.
02-11-2019 01:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You can check with Wikipedia if you like.

Why? Wikipedia is summarily dismissed as a reference. It has too many articles that are badly written, incomplete, or just flat wrong.
keepit wrote:
It describe several bands and divisions of IR.
It is wrong. There is only one band of IR.
keepit wrote:
It was my question and it was put to you and IBDM.
No, it was IBDaMann's question put to you.
keepit wrote:
The time stamp is 20:30 today. It was not your question.
Correct. It is IBDaMann's question put to you.
keepit wrote:
You are the one that is evading.
Inversion fallacy.
keepit wrote:
You say that IR doesn't impart energy to GHG's but they do.
No, they don't. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Only your religion uses this buzzword.
keepit wrote:
I didn't say that none of IR escapes.
Never said you did.
keepit wrote:
That is what you said.
Never said it.
keepit wrote:
Enough IR doesn't escape and that increases the temp of GHG's.
Absorption of surface infrared by any gas or vapor does not warm the Earth. The surface is cooled by emitting that infrared light.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 01:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
You say the IR goes in the direction it is traveling. But I was asking where that energy goes if it isn't absorbed by GHG's.


Same place as energy absorbed by any gas or vapor...into space. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 01:57
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
I didn't say a greenhouse gas warms the earth. I said the GHG's hold in the thermal energy that the sun sends us.
By the way, half of IR that the sun sends us gets through to the actual earth. The rest is absorbed by the GHG's.
02-11-2019 02:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
keepit wrote:
I didn't say a greenhouse gas warms the earth. I said the GHG's hold in the thermal energy that the sun sends us.

Paradox. You are being irrational. You still have not cleared this paradox.
* It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
keepit wrote:
By the way, half of IR that the sun sends us gets through to the actual earth. The rest is absorbed by the GHG's.

Argument from randU fallacy. CO2 or methane or water vapor absorb only very narrow frequency bands. The Sun emits a wide band of infrared. Almost all of it reaches the surface, heating it directly. Some does indeed heat gasses in the atmosphere, but only at these narrow frequencies.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-11-2019 02:10
02-11-2019 02:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
I should have said that Wikipedia says that half of the sun's IR reaches the earth.
02-11-2019 03:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
keepit wrote:...Greenhouse gasses slow the energy leaving the earth...
Yes they do but I would simply say for starters that any atmosphere does to a degree. We've been to most of the planets and we have our own moon. The more atmosphere there is the more the average temp at ground level exceeds what we'd find without an atmosphere. We could know nothing about the theory at all and just visit the planets and know that where there is a lot of gas the ground level has a higher temperature than it would otherwise.

keepit wrote:It takes time for the infrared energy to be absorbed and then reradiated from the greenhouse gasses.
Yes just the fact that they are in the way means that the radiance has a more circuitous route to escape.

keepit wrote:
Youcan slow the transfer of energy from earth to outer space.
The key thing is that more thermal energy is around longer. From time to time and in general there is a rough equilibrium with as much energy leaving the Earth system (with all it's parts) as are added to it. But the ground level temperature is greatly effected by how much thermal energy is swirling around, not yet having made an exit.
Venus is real! Not having an explanation for Venus here simply means, again, that ITN/IBD are playing games.

keepit wrote:
It's true that not all IR hits GHG's,
Actually it's difficult to see how an infra red radiance from the ground could make it through the entire atmosphere without being reabsorbed. I think almost all and possible all is.

If you took all of the atmosphere and compressed it into a liquid it would be 10 meters deep. That's a lot of matter to make it through in a straight shot.

Reflected light can do it because it's transmitted by the gases being at a high frequency.

keepit wrote:CO2 slows the transfer of energy from the earth to outer space.
More energy comes in. than goes out (due to the slowed outflow).
I don't think that sounds spot on. The slowing of the movement of thermal energy doesn't have to mean that there isn't equilibrium in the give/take. Venus isn't taking in or giving up more energy than Mercury, in fact less, and it has a much much hotter ground level.

So it's that the same amount of energy hangs out on Earth longer.

It would be like having a traffic jam or a smooth flow of traffic with exactly the same number of cars coming and going in either case.

keepit wrote:
IBDM,
You say the IR goes in the direction it is traveling. But I was asking where that energy goes if it isn't absorbed by GHG's.
Try asking them what happens to the radiance between two plates when there is thermal equilibrium! ha ha, they think it's not absorbed. Make any sense? Nope.

Radiance is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. No back flips, no magic, just those three options.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
02-11-2019 03:56
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
One other item.
since half of the sun's IR gets through to earth, i guess it might be reasonable that half the IR leaving earth gets through to outer space.
02-11-2019 07:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
keepit wrote: I should have said that Wikipedia says that half of the sun's IR reaches the earth.

You must have misread something. Only a small portion of the sun's IR is incident to earth. You know that half of the sun's IR is emitted into space on the side facing away from earth. Yet more is emitted vertically up and down, and to the left and to the right relative to earth, not going in the direction of earth.

Only a small beam is pointed at earth, and then you have to apply the inverse square.


.


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
02-11-2019 11:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
keepit wrote:
One other item.
since half of the sun's IR gets through to earth, i guess it might be reasonable that half the IR leaving earth gets through to outer space.
Yeah that makes sense.

What about this for a thought: You can get something wet and the water will evaporate. What if you had two balls with a mist of water hitting them from just one side as they rotate. A billiard Ball and billiard ball wrapped in gauze. The gauze "soaks up" the water and so the surface of that billiard ball is much wetter than that of the unwrapped ball. It seems to me that having gases and circulating liquids that can convect, move around and re-radiate adds tot he ability to soak up thermal energy.


IBdaMann wrote:
Only a small beam is pointed at earth,
Wow you are a waste of space IBD.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
02-11-2019 14:10
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
IVBDM,
You misread my post. I was wondering if someone would. I should have worded it thusly - only 1/2 of the IR that reaches earth's atmosphere actually makes it straight down to earth itself.
Conversely, i suppose only half of the IR leaving the earth makes it out of the atmosphere on the first try. The IR that doesn't make it out on the first try bounces around, back and forth for a while to earth and back to the atmosphere and then eventually makes it out i suppose.
02-11-2019 14:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(710)
tmid,
Is that an analogy to GHG?
02-11-2019 15:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
keepit wrote:
tmid,
Is that an analogy to GHG?

Yeah I think theres is a capacity a rotating planet has to soak up the daytime sun so that theres tgermal energy still swirling around by dawn.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
03-11-2019 08:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
tmid,
Is that an analogy to GHG?

Yeah I think theres is a capacity a rotating planet has to soak up the daytime sun so that theres tgermal energy still swirling around by dawn.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
[/quote]


You're basically redefining the Earth's energy budget which is based on approximately 1,360 w/m^2. I don't agree with it. The solar minimum and maximum agrees with it. This might be where astrophysics could better explain things but we are stuck with atmospheric chemistry and physics for the time being.
Page 18 of 19<<<16171819>





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