Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 19 of 19<<<171819
03-11-2019 10:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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
03-11-2019 17:10
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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



This might help you to understand my perspective. Atmospheric gases have "heat content". When 2 or more gas molecules interact, they transfer heat content so they will be in thermal equilibrium.
If the transfer of heat is not efficient then there will be an increase of thermal energy in our atmosphere. Heat might be relative to the number of collisions between molecules and heat content released as heat/thermal energy.
CO2's influence can be quantified by direct observation but this has yet to be done.

http://www.physics.louisville.edu/cldavis/phys298/notes/heat_thermeq.html
03-11-2019 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.


It is not possible to store thermal energy. There is always heat. Neither ball is storing thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
04-11-2019 01:31
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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
04-11-2019 06:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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
04-11-2019 16:39
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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



That's right. If you rub your hands together and they get hot, that's because friction increases the number and severity of collisions. And the wind chill factor is fast moving molecules that have fewer collisions and KE is 1/2 mv>2, right?
With CO2, it might have an indirect effect. They say that 60% of global warming is caused by water vapor. If you consider mass by atomic units then there's
H2O = 10
N2 = 14
O2 = 16
CO2 = 22

CO2 might actually be increasing the KE of both the oceans and our atmosphere. CO2 is a stable molecule because of its KE relative to the field it's in.
05-11-2019 05:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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.
05-11-2019 13:03
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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.



Because of its greater mass it will move slower. This can increase the number of collisions/amount of electromagnetic radiation/heat released by lighter, more reactive gases.
05-11-2019 18:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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 Parrot Killer
06-11-2019 05:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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
06-11-2019 09:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.


The Parrot Killer
06-11-2019 16:40
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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
06-11-2019 16:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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.
KE = 3/2kT refers to temperature k which is degrees kelvin while KE = 3/2kT/n refers to the heat of a single molecule.
That's kind of like saying Ballard and Seattle. You can't have Seattle without Ballard (originally a Norwegian community
).
06-11-2019 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.

Heat is not electromagnetic energy.


The Parrot Killer
06-11-2019 23:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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.

"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
06-11-2019 23:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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?


The Parrot Killer
07-11-2019 04:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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.

"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
07-11-2019 05:51
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
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?



Honey, I've missed you too. This is a trick question and a rather good one at that. I'll give you an A for creativity.
It's temperature would actually be based on the friction of it traveling at 26.822 m/s.
This kind of goes back to friction is an increased amount of collisions between molecules. And as a molecule's cycling rate increases so does the body and/or mass that it's associated with.
Thank You ITN for such a good question.

And for more fun we can also consider the KE and pressure of the atmosphere the baseball is transiting through.

Edited on 07-11-2019 05:53
07-11-2019 08:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.


Nope. That is not temperature, despite what you think Max Planck says.


The Parrot Killer
08-11-2019 12:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. That is not temperature, ...

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". What is Temperature in your weird opinion ITN?

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, ...

" Thermal energy is energy that comes from a substance whose molecules and atoms are vibrating faster due to a rise in temperature."
https://www.solarschools.net/knowledge-bank/energy/types/thermal

"it can be explained in microscopic terms by the random kinetic energy due to the microscopic motion of the system's particles from translations, rotations, and vibrations," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy

So if thermal energy isn't due to the movement of molecules I'm curious what you think it is?

"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
08-11-2019 16:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
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".

Again we come back to what a wothless post looks like. You regurgitate erroneous argument A without science support, often based on an appeal to authority taken out of context and misunderstood, somebody tries to help you out and tell you of an error in your argument and you simply repeat your erroneous regurgitation. Your posts add no value; they add only an abrasive preaching of your WACKY religious dogma to those who are annoyed at your evangelizing.

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, ...


[Hint: There's a reason the word "corresponds" is used instead of the word "is"]


.


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
08-11-2019 18:34
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(196)
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??
08-11-2019 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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??


Yup. Both are moving at the same speed, but the truck has more energy.

In a given volume, a lower pressure gas at 70 deg F will have less energy than a high pressure gas at 70 deg F. Same thing. They both have the same volume, and they are at the same temperature, yet one has more energy than the other.

If you join the two regions, allowing high pressure gas to enter the low pressure area, the escaping gas from the high pressure area will cool (according to the ideal gas law), but will be warmed again by the low pressure gas. This is why when you release a CO2 gas bottle into atmospheric pressure, you get dry ice at the nozzle, but not anywhere else. The nozzle acts as a venturi, dropping the pressure more dramatically.

In addition, the high pressure gas will get colder while gas is flowing, and the low pressure gas will get warmer, again according to the ideal gas law. When it's all over, both are again the same temperature, and now at equal pressure, and now have equal energy.

Entropy has increased to it's maximum, and the work that created the temperature differential is no longer available. The energy difference is expended.

This trick was actually used on steam locomotives for getting water from the tender (at atmospheric pressure) into the boiler (which is under pressure). It is done simply with a pair of venturis. No moving parts! It all depends on water being more dense than steam.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-11-2019 20:00
Page 19 of 19<<<171819





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?4512-11-2019 17:49
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