Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

James___ wrote:You're basically redefining the Earth's energy budget ...

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:You're basically redefining the Earth's energy budget ...

Budget is a good term. Think of what that means financially: How much you make vs. how much you spend. What a "Budget" does not include is "Savings". An object can be in thermal equilibrium and be white hot. The temperature of an object is not entirely determined by how much energy it absorbs. Despite the constant prattling of ITN/IBD from a common understanding of the language thermal energy can in fact be stored.

If you started with two relatively cool steel balls, one solid and one hollow, and you exposed them to a heat lamp, the hollow ball would get up to temperature first and reach thermal equilibrium. The solid ball would take much longer as it stored up all the thermal energy throughout it's additional mass. In the end the temperature on the surface of each ball would be the same. But not after you turned to light out and the solid ball took much longer to spend all of it's savings.


"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

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:You're basically redefining the Earth's energy budget ...

Budget is a good term. Think of what that means financially: How much you make vs. how much you spend. What a "Budget" does not include is "Savings". An object can be in thermal equilibrium and be white hot. The temperature of an object is not entirely determined by how much energy it absorbs. Despite the constant prattling of ITN/IBD from a common understanding of the language thermal energy can in fact be stored.

If you started with two relatively cool steel balls, one solid and one hollow, and you exposed them to a heat lamp, the hollow ball would get up to temperature first and reach thermal equilibrium. The solid ball would take much longer as it stored up all the thermal energy throughout it's additional mass. In the end the temperature on the surface of each ball would be the same. But not after you turned to light out and the solid ball took much longer to spend all of it's savings.

James___ wrote:
tmiddles, if you get this, the reason increasing pressure increases temperature is because there are more collisions. This shows that gases can conserve heat as heat content or simply as kinetic energy in a gas molecule.

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class-thermodynamics/heatcap_volume.html

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
tmiddles, if you get this, the reason increasing pressure increases temperature is because there are more collisions. This shows that gases can conserve heat as heat content or simply as kinetic energy in a gas molecule.

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class-thermodynamics/heatcap_volume.html

I think I got you. You're saying a gas is less able to transfer it's thermal energy out because it's not always able to crash into another molecule.

But it can also radiate the energy out. Also convection allows it to transport heat without a collision.

"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

James___ wrote:
CO2 = 22
CO2 might actually be increasing the KE

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
CO2 = 22
CO2 might actually be increasing the KE

You saying because it's heavier it'll have more energy? I think that it would have the same energy as a lighter molecule (whatever it received) it would just vibrate less given it's greater mass.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
CO2 = 22
CO2 might actually be increasing the KE

You saying because it's heavier it'll have more energy? I think that it would have the same energy as a lighter molecule (whatever it received) it would just vibrate less given it's greater mass.

Into the Night wrote:
Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

Yes but you'd need more input energy to get a mack truck moving. So for the same energy input I would think there is no difference between a BB and Mack Truck since that would equate, for the same input energy, to a Mack Truck moving

BB = 0.12 grams
Mack Truck = 10000 kg

kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

KE=1/2MV^2

A BB at 100 km an hour would be I think:
0.00012 KG = 0.12 grams
100 km and hour / 3600 seconds * 1000 meters = 27.8 Meters per second
is 0.00000437 Joules

I cheated and used this: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php

So the mack truck with the same energy would be moving: .00003 M/s or .0001 KM an hour

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

Yes but you'd need more input energy to get a mack truck moving. So for the same energy input I would think there is no difference between a BB and Mack Truck since that would equate, for the same input energy, to a Mack Truck moving

BB = 0.12 grams
Mack Truck = 10000 kg

kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

KE=1/2MV^2

A BB at 100 km an hour would be I think:
0.00012 KG = 0.12 grams
100 km and hour / 3600 seconds * 1000 meters = 27.8 Meters per second
is 0.00000437 Joules

I cheated and used this: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php

So the mack truck with the same energy would be moving: .00003 M/s or .0001 KM an hour

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

Yes but you'd need more input energy to get a mack truck moving. So for the same energy input I would think there is no difference between a BB and Mack Truck since that would equate, for the same input energy, to a Mack Truck moving

BB = 0.12 grams
Mack Truck = 10000 kg

kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

KE=1/2MV^2

A BB at 100 km an hour would be I think:
0.00012 KG = 0.12 grams
100 km and hour / 3600 seconds * 1000 meters = 27.8 Meters per second
is 0.00000437 Joules

I cheated and used this: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php

So the mack truck with the same energy would be moving: .00003 M/s or .0001 KM an hour

Then apparently you don't know what temperature is.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

Yes but you'd need more input energy to get a mack truck moving. So for the same energy input I would think there is no difference between a BB and Mack Truck since that would equate, for the same input energy, to a Mack Truck moving

BB = 0.12 grams
Mack Truck = 10000 kg

kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

KE=1/2MV^2

A BB at 100 km an hour would be I think:
0.00012 KG = 0.12 grams
100 km and hour / 3600 seconds * 1000 meters = 27.8 Meters per second
is 0.00000437 Joules

I cheated and used this: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php

So the mack truck with the same energy would be moving: .00003 M/s or .0001 KM an hour

Then apparently you don't know what temperature is.

Heat is emitted electromagnetic radiation while temperature refers to the amount of heat in a given volume.

Into the Night wrote:
Then apparently you don't know what temperature is.

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Then apparently you don't know what temperature is.

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules.

Yep, it's kinetic energy on the microscopic level. That's movement.

Into the Night wrote:...a baseball traveling at 60mph, what is it's temperature?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Then apparently you don't know what temperature is.

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules.

Yep, it's kinetic energy on the microscopic level. That's movement.

So if you had a microscopic view of a baseball traveling at 60mph, what is it's temperature?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...a baseball traveling at 60mph, what is it's temperature?

You mean there are two baseballs with internal thermometers reading 70F, one is resting on the ground, the other was just thrown and it moving 60mph (the internal thermometer still reading 70F).

Short answer is I don't care if it's not 70F because it's a curiosity that's not useful at all if some other argument can be made.

Temperature, as Max Planck describes it IS in fact the movement of molecules.

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. That is not temperature, ...

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, ...

tmiddles wrote: Again we come back to what a normal and useful post WOULD look like. "it's not A it's B!", whereas your useless posts are just "it's not A".

tmiddles wrote:Temperature, as Max Planck describes it IS in fact the movement of molecules.

Into the Night wrote:Nope. That is not temperature, despite what you think Max Planck says.

tmiddles wrote that Max Planks says:Max Planck wrote:Pg.190 - According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, ...

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
CO2 = 22
CO2 might actually be increasing the KE

You saying because it's heavier it'll have more energy? I think that it would have the same energy as a lighter molecule (whatever it received) it would just vibrate less given it's greater mass.

Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

Which does more damage when it hits something?

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
CO2 = 22
CO2 might actually be increasing the KE

You saying because it's heavier it'll have more energy? I think that it would have the same energy as a lighter molecule (whatever it received) it would just vibrate less given it's greater mass.

Which has more energy when moving at 60mph? A BB or a Mack truck?

Which does more damage when it hits something?

The Mack truck??