Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 1 of 19123>>>
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law13-09-2017 12:06
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
13-09-2017 17:11
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel. It's about black body radiation and can be used with Planck's constant as well. This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity. If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases. However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well. But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)
13-09-2017 17:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die when you are permanently in a wheelchair.
13-09-2017 18:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people don't know what the stefan-bolzmann law is. By name dropping it you might convince stupid people that you are clever, and that is why he keeps going on about it.
13-09-2017 19:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die wh[img][/img]en you are permanently in a wheelchair.
Jellyfish are doing just fine, shows what you know.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
13-09-2017 20:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die wh[img][/img]en you are permanently in a wheelchair.
Jellyfish are doing just fine, shows what you know.


You have been making comments implying that you have actually been studying the problem. That's can't have any good effects from the AGW True Believers.

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.
13-09-2017 21:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.


I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
13-09-2017 21:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.


I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.


Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.
13-09-2017 21:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.


I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.


Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.


Nuk nuk,

Learn that insult in primary school?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
13-09-2017 21:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.


I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.


Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.


Nuk nuk,

Learn that insult in primary school?


That is not an insult - that is a conclusion as to your intelligence based on your entries here.
13-09-2017 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
James_ wrote:
Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel.
It applies to all substances. Not just steel.
James_ wrote:
It's about black body radiation
Correct.
James_ wrote:
and can be used with Planck's constant as well.
Correct.
James_ wrote:
This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity.
Ohms law has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James_ wrote:
If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.
You're off by about 40 years for both. The study of thermodynamics came nearly the same time because of the industrial revolution, not because they are particularly related.
James_ wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases.
Yes it does. So does emissivity.
James_ wrote:
However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well.
No, it can't. Emissivity is a measured value.
James_ wrote:
But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

So you consider physics a sense of humor, do you?


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 22:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

So you consider physics a sense of humor, do you?[/quote]

Just you and Wake :-D
13-09-2017 22:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


At what point will you make a plain explanation of your nut ideas?

You've already told us that radiation goes in ALL directions. If that is so then indeed a colder surface can warm a warmer one.

IR radiation is not "light". It is an electro-magnetic wave of a frequency below that of light.

Look, making your close minded statements simply shows that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Photons are ALL the same. The only difference between them is the amount of energy they carry. Tell me - is your car different when it has a full gas tank than when it is half empty? Photons are zero mass quantum particles. An electron going at near the speed of light is no different than an electron going at a relative zero motion. But the amount of energy they carry is different.

You do not understand simple mathematics and your idea that you cannot cross correlate the two variables in Stefan-Boltzmann equation proves it.

That you don't believe that you can tell the mean global temperature from direct measurement from space is another point that demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of science.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant but there's plenty bad about being stupid and holding your position. Or is that another of your definitions of bigot? Anyone that notices that none of your speeches make any sense?
13-09-2017 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics.

Inversion fallacy.

Science doesn't require 'training'. No university owns science. Science isn't a degree or a credential. Anyone can use or even create science...even kids, if the requirements of a scientific theory are satisfied. Education helps, of course, but it is not required for science.

Wake wrote:
He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

Heh. I have no such book.
[/quote]
Wake wrote:
But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Then why are you arguing the way they do, by denying theories of science???
Wake wrote:
Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation

Not my equation. Look at the NAME of the equation, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
shows HOW climate change could happen

No, it doesn't.
Wake wrote:
if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann.
Dr. Mann's theories are based on a math error. You can't use statistics that way.
Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't.

There is. Light is energy. Certain frequencies of light are absorbed by CO2. It is just like any other gas (or any other substance for that matter).

CO2 does heat the atmosphere, ever so slightly. That is no different than other forms of heating the atmosphere by the surface, including conduction. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself.

Absorption by CO2 does not make it a 'greenhouse' gas. The critical failure is the attempt to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, either by radiance or by conduction.

Wake wrote:
This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed.

Nothing to do with it.
Wake wrote:
There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Nothing to do with it. You are also making an argument from randU. You don't know what global CO2 concentration was. You don't know what it is today. All we have is a very few stations even monitoring it. Again, you don't understand statistics.
Wake wrote:
Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I find that most of what the media says has little to do with any theory or law of science.
Wake wrote:
This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged.

...or just plain illiterate.
Wake wrote:
By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.
...deleted off topic rant...

You are quite right connecting the Church of Ecology, the Church of Global Warming, and the Church of Karl Marx together.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 22:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
spot wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people don't know what the stefan-bolzmann law is. By name dropping it you might convince stupid people that you are clever, and that is why he keeps going on about it.


I've stated the law quite a few times here. I have also explained quite a few times why a simple algebraic conversion doesn't work (especially with a reflecting body). I have also explained why not knowing the emissivity is significant. I have also explained how you determine emissivity.

You are just making an argument of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 22:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

So you consider physics a sense of humor, do you?


Just you and Wake :-D[/quote]

I am still waiting for you to explain why you misrepresented what was said. Lies and distortions do nothing to improve your position.
13-09-2017 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die wh[img][/img]en you are permanently in a wheelchair.
Jellyfish are doing just fine, shows what you know.


You have been making comments implying that you have actually been studying the problem. That's can't have any good effects from the AGW True Believers.

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.


Heh. Guess the jellyfish are doing just fine then!

Jellyfish do not destroy habitat.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.


I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.


Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.


Nuk nuk,

Learn that insult in primary school?


That is not an insult - that is a conclusion as to your intelligence based on your entries here.

Must have learned that comeback from primary school as well.

Grow up, dude.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 22:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics.

Inversion fallacy.

Science doesn't require 'training'. No university owns science. Science isn't a degree or a credential. Anyone can use or even create science...even kids, if the requirements of a scientific theory are satisfied. Education helps, of course, but it is not required for science.

Wake wrote:
He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

Heh. I have no such book.

Wake wrote:
But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Then why are you arguing the way they do, by denying theories of science???
Wake wrote:
Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation

Not my equation. Look at the NAME of the equation, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
shows HOW climate change could happen

No, it doesn't.
Wake wrote:
if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann.
Dr. Mann's theories are based on a math error. You can't use statistics that way.
Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't.

There is. Light is energy. Certain frequencies of light are absorbed by CO2. It is just like any other gas (or any other substance for that matter).

CO2 does heat the atmosphere, ever so slightly. That is no different than other forms of heating the atmosphere by the surface, including conduction. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself.

Absorption by CO2 does not make it a 'greenhouse' gas. The critical failure is the attempt to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, either by radiance or by conduction.

Wake wrote:
This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed.

Nothing to do with it.
Wake wrote:
There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Nothing to do with it. You are also making an argument from randU. You don't know what global CO2 concentration was. You don't know what it is today. All we have is a very few stations even monitoring it. Again, you don't understand statistics.
Wake wrote:
Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I find that most of what the media says has little to do with any theory or law of science.
Wake wrote:
This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged.

...or just plain illiterate.
Wake wrote:
By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.
...deleted off topic rant...

You are quite right connecting the Church of Ecology, the Church of Global Warming, and the Church of Karl Marx together.[/quote]

Enough of your foolish crap - science does require training. There is a means and a method to it. You have neither.

Again you prove your inability to understand emission and absorption. No, IR isn't light. And just any light isn't enough.

Because you don't understand science you don't understand the scientific method and how it is controlled by nothing more than a series of theories that can be or may not be true but that MUST be used until a better more explanatory theory comes along.

Time after time you show your inability to understand science and think that you can prove you do by happening to know one thing that could POSSIBLY be true.

Tell us how you radiate energy into an area of higher energy?
13-09-2017 23:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Heh. Guess the jellyfish are doing just fine then!

Jellyfish do not destroy habitat.


It depends. Are they an "improved" species increasing their normal range or the same species simply filling a void due to pollution damage or the like? Both are occurring.

Tell me, how much thought would it have taken for that to have occurred to you?
13-09-2017 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


At what point will you make a plain explanation of your nut ideas?

I already have. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
You've already told us that radiation goes in ALL directions.

It does.
Wake wrote:
If that is so then indeed a colder surface can warm a warmer one.

No. Direction of radiation does not mean that at all. Not all photons are the same. Not all intensities are the same either.
Wake wrote:
IR radiation is not "light".

It certainly is.
Wake wrote:
It is an electro-magnetic wave of a frequency below that of light.

Light is all electromagnetic frequencies...even radio waves. All are photons as well.
Wake wrote:
Look, making your close minded statements simply shows that you don't understand what you're talking about.

But I do.
Wake wrote:
Photons are ALL the same.

Nope.
Wake wrote:
The only difference between them is the amount of energy they carry.

That makes them different.
Wake wrote:
Tell me - is your car different when it has a full gas tank than when it is half empty?

It is different. It weighs less. It won't go as far under its own power.
Wake wrote:
Photons are zero mass quantum particles.

Photons have a 'mass'. You can even calculate what the 'mass' of a photon is, using Einstein's law, which relates mass and energy.
Wake wrote:
An electron going at near the speed of light is no different than an electron going at a relative zero motion. But the amount of energy they carry is different.

Yes it is. Their relative velocity is different. They carry the same energy, which is the charge of a single electron.
Wake wrote:
You do not understand simple mathematics

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that doesn't understand mathematics.
Wake wrote:
and your idea that you cannot cross correlate the two variables in Stefan-Boltzmann equation proves it.

You can, but not by adding terms to the equation, as you are doing, or by removing terms from the equation, as you are doing.
Wake wrote:
That you don't believe that you can tell the mean global temperature

You can't. I have already discussed a very small part of statistical math that says why. You do not understand statistics, probability math, or random number math.
Wake wrote:
from direct measurement from space

No satellite can measure absolute temperature. It is not in contact with the Earth (unless it crashed!). You cannot measure absolute temperature by measuring light. You are guessing.
Wake wrote:
is another point that demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of science.

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. That is not a science problem. That is a math problem.
Wake wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being ignorant but there's plenty bad about being stupid and holding your position.

Inversion fallacy. You just described yourself.
Wake wrote:
Or is that another of your definitions of bigot?

Strawman fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Anyone that notices that none of your speeches make any sense?

Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
Enough of your foolish crap - science does require training.

Nope. No university owns science. No credential defines science. Anyone can use and create science. No one owns science.
Wake wrote:
There is a means

What is a scientific 'mean'???
Wake wrote:
and a method to it.

There are many methods to it.
Wake wrote:
You have neither.

Argument of ignorance.
Wake wrote:
Again you prove your inability to understand emission and absorption.

Absorption: conversion of electromagnetic energy into thermal, chemical, or ionizing energy.
Emission: conversion of thermal, chemical, or ionizing energy into electromagnetic energy.
Wake wrote:
No, IR isn't light.

Yes it is. ALL electromagnetic energy is light. ALL electromagnetic energy also can be considered photons.
Wake wrote:
And just any light isn't enough.

What light isn't enough for what???
Wake wrote:
Because you don't understand science you don't understand the scientific method

There is no such thing as an 'official' scientific method. The method of science has one and only one purpose: to satisfy the definition of science itself.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Wake wrote:
and how it is controlled by nothing more than a series of theories that can be or may not be true but that MUST be used until a better more explanatory theory comes along.

Theories do not control science. Science is made up theories. They must be falsifiable. They must be externally consistent. They must be internally consistent.
Wake wrote:
Time after time you show your inability to understand science

Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
and think that you can prove you do by happening to know one thing that could POSSIBLY be true.

No theory is 'true'. No theory is ever proven. No theory is ever sanctified, legitimized, or proven by any form of supporting evidence or age. A theory in science remains a theory until it is destroyed.
Wake wrote:
Tell us how you radiate energy into an area of higher energy?

Okay.

Light a candle outside on a bright sunny day.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2017 23:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.


More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

I'm waiting.
14-09-2017 00:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.


More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

You seem to like to use this phrase when you don't understand a term that is used. Since you use this phrase so much, it only indicates you actually understand very little.
Wake wrote:
Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

They aren't. They have the same energy, the same rest mass, the same everything.
Wake wrote:
Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

They have different energy levels.
Wake wrote:
I'm waiting.

Still?


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2017 01:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.


More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

You seem to like to use this phrase when you don't understand a term that is used. Since you use this phrase so much, it only indicates you actually understand very little.
Wake wrote:
Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

They aren't. They have the same energy, the same rest mass, the same everything.
Wake wrote:
Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

They have different energy levels.
Wake wrote:
I'm waiting.

Still?


They have the same rest mass and different energy levels. The same as a photon.
14-09-2017 02:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.


More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

You seem to like to use this phrase when you don't understand a term that is used. Since you use this phrase so much, it only indicates you actually understand very little.
Wake wrote:
Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

They aren't. They have the same energy, the same rest mass, the same everything.
Wake wrote:
Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

They have different energy levels.
Wake wrote:
I'm waiting.

Still?


They have the same rest mass and different energy levels. The same as a photon.


Nope. Photons have a frequency. Energy is dependent on that frequency. Photons are also never at rest.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2017 05:47
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-09-2017 05:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel. It's about black body radiation and can be used with Planck's constant as well. This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity. If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases. However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well. But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)


I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-09-2017 18:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan wrote:

I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.


Thanks GreenMan. I've tried explaining to some people that just as ozone is a rare gas in our atmosphere it reflects a lot of UV-B radiation back out into space. And many scientists believes that CO2 reflects electromagnetic radiation back into the lower troposphere. What I think is missing is how efficient is CO2 at doing this. It might be they haven't been able to realize it's specific value just yet. And this would be why computer generated models will vary when it comes to warming.
14-09-2017 18:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation. Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

Remember - he sees radio waves as light.
14-09-2017 20:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation. Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

Remember - he sees radio waves as light.


Wake says >> He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. <<
You mean like from the tropopause at -74° to the troposphere where today (where I live) it is currently 69° for a net increase of 143° F. I am glad you cleared that up for me Wake


@GreenMan,
I think that I've thought of a way to show that our atmosphere is acted upon by outside forces. Just as the Moon is responsible for tides it can also effect atmospheric pressure. And with pressure, if you scroll down you'll see where it says Ideal Gas Law with Restraints. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/idegas.html
With me I do believe that the van Allen Radiation Belts expand our atmosphere. If CO2 "robs" momentum from lighter gases then it would have the potential to cause them to store more electro-magnetic radiation which in turn would be observed as heat. Wake and ITN I don't think accepts that conservation of angular momentum can allow for a more energetic environment. They don't accept angular momentum as having anything to do with atmospheric chemistry. One of the reasons I think there here to provide some comedic relief

Edited on 14-09-2017 20:37
14-09-2017 20:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


It really doesn't. Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2017 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel. It's about black body radiation and can be used with Planck's constant as well. This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity. If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases. However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well. But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)


I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.


Electromagnetic energy, actually. Electrical energy is not electromagnetic energy. Electrical energy is simply the charge of protons and electrons. That does not have a frequency.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2017 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.


Thanks GreenMan. I've tried explaining to some people that just as ozone is a rare gas in our atmosphere it reflects a lot of UV-B radiation back out into space.

It doesn't. Ozone is transparent to UV-B. Oxygen, however, absorbs UV-B. It does not reflect it back out into space. The result of that absorption is a chemical reaction, producing ozone.
James_ wrote:
And many scientists believes that CO2 reflects electromagnetic radiation back into the lower troposphere.

True. Many do. It actually does, too. Despite this, it is not capable of warming the surface or anything else warmer than itself.
James_ wrote:
What I think is missing is how efficient is CO2 at doing this.

Approximately 50%.
James_ wrote:
It might be they haven't been able to realize it's specific value just yet. And this would be why computer generated models will vary when it comes to warming.

Computer models are not data. They are manufactured data.

You cannot heat a warmer surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by radiance. You are still trying to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Entropy always increases in any system. Heat always flows from hot to cold. There no exceptions to this.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2017 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will.

But I do.
Wake wrote:
Heat goes from the warmer to the colder.
Correct.
Wake wrote:
It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation.
Radiance is not heat. It is ONLY heat when the radiance is absorbed by something.
Wake wrote:
Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

I think you don't understand the difference between light and thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Remember - he sees radio waves as light.

They are.

ALL electromagnetic energy is light. ALL of it can be expressed as photons. ALL of it can be seen with the right equipment.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2017 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation. Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

Remember - he sees radio waves as light.


Wake says >> He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. <<
You mean like from the tropopause at -74° to the troposphere where today (where I live) it is currently 69° for a net increase of 143° F. I am glad you cleared that up for me Wake


@GreenMan,
I think that I've thought of a way to show that our atmosphere is acted upon by outside forces. Just as the Moon is responsible for tides it can also effect atmospheric pressure. And with pressure, if you scroll down you'll see where it says Ideal Gas Law with Restraints. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/idegas.html
With me I do believe that the van Allen Radiation Belts expand our atmosphere. If CO2 "robs" momentum from lighter gases then it would have the potential to cause them to store more electro-magnetic radiation which in turn would be observed as heat. Wake and ITN I don't think accepts that conservation of angular momentum can allow for a more energetic environment. They don't accept angular momentum as having anything to do with atmospheric chemistry. One of the reasons I think there here to provide some comedic relief


I find it hilarious that you quote from the hyperphysics website and then claim that angular momentum has anything to do with temperature or chemistry.

Maybe you should study the site some more.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 00:05
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:


I find it hilarious that you quote from the hyperphysics website and then claim that angular momentum has anything to do with temperature or chemistry.

Maybe you should study the site some more.



That does seem to be all you know about science isn't it ? You allude to knowing something. You and Wake do it quite well and I find it comical how insulted the both of you act sometimes.

al·lude
əˈlo͞od/Submit
verb
suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at.
synonyms: refer to, touch on, suggest, hint at, imply, mention (in passing), make an allusion to
15-09-2017 00:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote: You mean like from the tropopause at -74° to the troposphere where today (where I live) it is currently 69° for a net increase of 143° F. I am glad you cleared that up for me Wake


Do you have even a clue what you're talking about? You find it peculiar that the closer to the surface of the Earth where 48% of the Sun's energy is absorbed that it is warmer?

You really have to expand on this. Your experiment must be a real doozy if you find it odd that the closer to a warm surface you get the warmer the atmosphere becomes.
15-09-2017 00:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


I find it hilarious that you quote from the hyperphysics website and then claim that angular momentum has anything to do with temperature or chemistry.

Maybe you should study the site some more.



That does seem to be all you know about science isn't it ? You allude to knowing something. You and Wake do it quite well and I find it comical how insulted the both of you act sometimes.

al·lude
əˈlo͞od/Submit
verb
suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at.
synonyms: refer to, touch on, suggest, hint at, imply, mention (in passing), make an allusion to

Nice attempt to cover your ass.

You blew it. You can't cover it!


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 19123>>>





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