Remember me
▼ Content

hurricanes during the ice age?



Page 2 of 4<1234>
11-10-2016 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

In most cases, that is correct. They are quite useless.

Into, that is not true. You want 100% sureness? Science never gives it. But our best guess, and a very good guess, is that the same models that apply well to today apply decently to yesterday.

Manufactured data is manufactured data, either today, yesterday, or 20 years from now.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.

No.

*sigh* Tell me, Into, what is the power of models? Don't escape hatch. Just answer

The power of computer simulations is extremely limited, unless you're into writing computer games.
jwoodward48 wrote:.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.
Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.

You are. Stop treating the computer like God. Stop treating simulations like data.

So you're saying that data is God? Funny. I thought that data had no place in science. Make up your mind.

I never said the use of data has no place in science. It is an observation, one of many ways a theory can be inspired.

Manufactured data is garbage.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.
Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.

That's exactly what they do. That IS how models work.

You're clueless. You think that when the scientists make their simulations, they just pull up random.org and pick a number, then pass it off as simulated?

No, they use their own random number generators.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.

Nope. Just as useless.

Completely useless? How so?


It is manufactured data. It is garbage.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 22:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Into the Night wrote: The power of computer simulations is extremely limited, unless you're into writing computer games.


Into the Night wrote: I never said the use of data has no place in science. It is an observation, one of many ways a theory can be inspired.


Into the Night wrote:Manufactured data is garbage.


jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:You're clueless. You think that when the scientists make their simulations, they just pull up random.org and pick a number, then pass it off as simulated?

No, they use their own random number generators.


Into the Night wrote:It is manufactured data. It is garbage.


An excellent collection of wisdom.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-10-2016 23:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Surface Detail wrote:
He's not claiming anything of the sort. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. Gases cannot have a spectral radiance (which is what Planck's Law gives) because they don't have surfaces.


Then how does CO2 radiate?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 23:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
He's not claiming anything of the sort. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. Gases cannot have a spectral radiance (which is what Planck's Law gives) because they don't have surfaces.


Then how does CO2 radiate?

As I've already explained (and you can find out in any textbook on basic physics) gases radiate at discrete wavelengths that depend on the differences between the energy levels of their constituent atoms or molecules.
11-10-2016 23:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
He's not claiming anything of the sort. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. Gases cannot have a spectral radiance (which is what Planck's Law gives) because they don't have surfaces.


Then how does CO2 radiate?

As I've already explained (and you can find out in any textbook on basic physics) gases radiate at discrete wavelengths that depend on the differences between the energy levels of their constituent atoms or molecules.


You answered a different question that is unrelated. How does CO2 radiate at all, if there is no 'surface'?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 23:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
He's not claiming anything of the sort. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. Gases cannot have a spectral radiance (which is what Planck's Law gives) because they don't have surfaces.


Then how does CO2 radiate?

As I've already explained (and you can find out in any textbook on basic physics) gases radiate at discrete wavelengths that depend on the differences between the energy levels of their constituent atoms or molecules.


You answered a different question that is unrelated. How does CO2 radiate at all, if there is no 'surface'?

I just told you. The individual molecules radiate at discrete wavelengths that depend on the differences between their internal energy levels.
Edited on 11-10-2016 23:45
11-10-2016 23:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
He's not claiming anything of the sort. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. Gases cannot have a spectral radiance (which is what Planck's Law gives) because they don't have surfaces.


Then how does CO2 radiate?

As I've already explained (and you can find out in any textbook on basic physics) gases radiate at discrete wavelengths that depend on the differences between the energy levels of their constituent atoms or molecules.


You answered a different question that is unrelated. How does CO2 radiate at all, if there is no 'surface'?

I just told you. The individual molecules radiate at discrete wavelengths that depend on the differences between their internal energy levels.


You keep answering a different question (one that was never asked). Answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?


.


Let's take Hydrogen.



I don't know what temperature this was at, though. But since this is Planck's Law, one of the peaks is probably the Wien peak, right? The 656.28 nm is the largest, that might be it.

I go and I plug it into Wien's Law and get a temperature of 4418.8K. Okay. That's pretty hot, but not impossible to reach in a lab. That's feasible.

Now, I'm going to plug 656.28 nm into Planck's Law for the superhot gas. (It's probably not a plasma, it's not hot enough.) Since the emissivity is very near to 0 at this T and P (10 tm and 8400K H2, for reference, have 0.014 emissivity, and as you heat/compress H2 it gets less emissive.) We get about 6.90*10^6 or 6900000 intensity. The scale doesn't matter, they didn't give anything but the relative values anyway, so let's divide by 10^6 to have nicer numbers, and call the unit Intensities. Very original, I know. 6.90 Intensities for 656.28 nm.

Now let's plug in 500 nm. We get about 5.58*10^6 or 5.58 Intensities. Since we don't even know the scale of the graph (is the bottom 0, or what?), this is okayish? It seems kind of wrong that the two numbers are so close. The peak is supposed to be huge! See the graph?

Now let's plug in 486.13 nm. There's a peak here. The number we get should be more than 500 nm, right?

Nope. 5.30 Intensities.

How do you explain that, IB and Into? Is it more complex than you said, or are you wrong?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 00:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

In most cases, that is correct. They are quite useless.

Into, that is not true. You want 100% sureness? Science never gives it. But our best guess, and a very good guess, is that the same models that apply well to today apply decently to yesterday.

Manufactured data is manufactured data, either today, yesterday, or 20 years from now.

Models don't give you experimental data. They give you "best guess" data, which isn't science-data, it's computing-data in the sense that it is stored in a computer.

Manufactured data is manufactured data. The predictions are neither made-up nor data.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.

No.

*sigh* Tell me, Into, what is the power of models? Don't escape hatch. Just answer

The power of computer simulations is extremely limited, unless you're into writing computer games.

Not computer simulations. Models.
jwoodward48 wrote:.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.
Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.

You are. Stop treating the computer like God. Stop treating simulations like data.

So you're saying that data is God? Funny. I thought that data had no place in science. Make up your mind.

I never said the use of data has no place in science. It is an observation, one of many ways a theory can be inspired.

And the only way it can be tested.
Manufactured data is garbage.

True. How does this apply?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.
Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.

That's exactly what they do. That IS how models work.

You're clueless. You think that when the scientists make their simulations, they just pull up random.org and pick a number, then pass it off as simulated?

No, they use their own random number generators.

No, they don't. You are clueless. They use random numbers to put into the model, maybe, but they don't just pull the numbers out of their arses.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.

Nope. Just as useless.

Completely useless? How so?


It is manufactured data. It is garbage.


So - do models predict, or not? And are those predictions useful or useless? Speak carefully - you are speaking of the very heart of science. Here, things can be objectively wrong. Here, science itself is defined, and as the axioms of all science, it is impossible to disprove the foundation. Any proof would have to be done using the foundation itself!

In less fancy terms, you can be quite utterly wrong here, as usual, but you can also be quite utterly wrong in a completely objective way.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So - do models predict, or not? And are those predictions useful or useless? Speak carefully - you are speaking of the very heart of science. Here, things can be objectively wrong. Here, science itself is defined, and as the axioms of all science, it is impossible to disprove the foundation. Any proof would have to be done using the foundation itself!

In less fancy terms, you can be quite utterly wrong here, as usual, but you can also be quite utterly wrong in a completely objective way.


No. No model or theory is capable of predicting by itself. It must turn to a closed system, such as mathematics or logic, to gain the power of prediction. Once done, the theory is often just expressed in mathematical form.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Functionally, does a model predict?
12-10-2016 02:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Functionally, does a model predict?

No. Same answer.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 10:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
In conjunction with the aforementioned mathematics or logic, does a model predict.

Also, I mean "in practice," or "in operation", just so you know. I thought that "functionally" was equivalent to that.
12-10-2016 15:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: I don't know what temperature this was at, though.

You need the temperature. That's one of the parameters.

You need to have the measured E for the temperature T and the wavelength W in the domain. The example also needs to be verifiable.

Since no gas radiates per Planck's you should have a gazillion examples.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 15:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I can't find any experiments like that. What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak, so for everything to the left of the peak, x will be less than or equal to x+delta, and similar for the right. This means that the slope left of the peak will always be positive or zero, and the slope right of the peak will always be negative or zero. That is not the case for the observed spectrum.

2. This in turn means that no matter what temperature the hydrogen was at, the Planck function cannot produce the observed spectrum. There are multiple peaks, and a peak is where you go from positive to negative slope; only one peak can be the Wien peak, and the other must be on one side or the other. But each side must be monotonically increasing or decreasing for it to be the Planck function, and the existence of a peak implies a switch from positive to negative, both on one side of the peak. QED.

3. We did know the wavelength.

4. The observed energy is dependent on the distance of observation, but that will only serve to scale the graph, as every point will be multiplied by the same number. Since we do not have any absolute data, only a graph of relative energy, this is okay; we have no idea what the scale is anyway.
12-10-2016 16:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
There are no experiments confirming that gases don't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law for the same reason that there are no experiments confirming that pigs don't fly. It is totally obvious from the existence of line spectra that gases don't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law, just as it is totally obvious from their lack of wings that pigs don't fly. You don't need experiments to confirm this!
12-10-2016 16:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But DOMAINS you idiot!
12-10-2016 17:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:There are no experiments confirming that gases don't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law for the same reason that there are no experiments confirming that pigs don't fly.

Nope. It's not the same reason.

In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included. Ergo, there have been no successful experiments showing gases don't radiate with Planck's. Hence you are within your right to properly admit that, as far as you or anyone else knows, gases radiate according to Planck's, and that's the reason you have no example of any gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

You can't do it, can you? You just can't bring yourself to write/speak those words, yes? That should tell you everything you need to know about your religion.


p.s. - the model of "pigs don't fly" has successfully become a law. It's called the Law of Grounded Pigs, but it's not science, like the Law of Averages.
.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 17:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included.

Bullshit.
12-10-2016 17:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Specify.

"There are so many studies showing that pigs fly. They even tested outside of airplanes." - If you posted this, I would ask for the specific studies. The same applies for your WACKY statement that gases, despite having no surface and thus no surface area, can somehow have a spectral radiance, which is required for Planck's.
12-10-2016 18:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:There are no experiments confirming that gases don't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law for the same reason that there are no experiments confirming that pigs don't fly.

Nope. It's not the same reason.

In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included. Ergo, there have been no successful experiments showing gases don't radiate with Planck's. Hence you are within your right to properly admit that, as far as you or anyone else knows, gases radiate according to Planck's, and that's the reason you have no example of any gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

You can't do it, can you? You just can't bring yourself to write/speak those words, yes? That should tell you everything you need to know about your religion.


p.s. - the model of "pigs don't fly" has successfully become a law. It's called the Law of Grounded Pigs, but it's not science, like the Law of Averages.
.


Can you link or tell us where we can read more about these studies?

No, just a tirade of childish insults instead, what a surprise.


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.
12-10-2016 21:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included.

Bullshit.

Let me examine this closely ....

Nope! Still no example.

I see you're doubling down on the Surface Detail Contradiction.

Excellent!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 21:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included.

You made a claim here. Now back it up or admit you're bullshitting. What experiments?
12-10-2016 21:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
He's not making a claim. He's just science. Science is him.
12-10-2016 22:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included.

You made a claim here. Now back it up or admit you're bullshitting. What experiments?

Hey, dumbass, blome E. Do you honestly believe that I'm going to be thrown off by your lame attempts to bully me?

Give me an example of YOUR claim or kiss smaiyass. The fact that you don't have a single example is the answer to your stupid question.

Let's review:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

We can examine your bulslhit all day. We're done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. Why? Let's review:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

We will continue with this topic when something changes, dumbass. You finally acknowledged the lack of any experiments showing something radiating in violation of Planck's. You have the answer to your question.


Oh, what the heck, let's say it one more time:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

Would you like to add anything?


.





How do I show you right now the no successful tests falsifying


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 22:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: Specify. "There are so many studies showing that pigs fly.

I am not aware of any studies that concluded that pigs can fly under their own power.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 22:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
In the case of Planck's, c, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included.

You made a claim here. Now back it up or admit you're bullshitting. What experiments?

Hey, dumbass, blome E. Do you honestly believe that I'm going to be thrown off by your lame attempts to bully me?

Give me an example of YOUR claim or kiss smaiyass. The fact that you don't have a single example is the answer to your stupid question.

Let's review:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

We can examine your bulslhit all day. We're done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. Why? Let's review:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

We will continue with this topic when something changes, dumbass. You finally acknowledged the lack of any experiments showing something radiating in violation of Planck's. You have the answer to your question.


Oh, what the heck, let's say it one more time:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

Would you like to add anything?

How do I show you right now the no successful tests falsifying

Asking you to provide some evidence to support your claims is not bullying. You claimed that many experiments attempting to show that Planck's Law is false have been carried out. If so, you should be able to link to some documentary evidence of this. Where is your evidence?
12-10-2016 22:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote: Asking you to provide some evidence to support your claims is not bullying.

Politely asking you for an example of your claim isn't bullying either. I will happily answer your question ... when you show a modicum of respect and answer mine. If you are going to be a disrespectful piece of chit, then you can blome E.


Surface Detail wrote:You claimed that many experiments attempting to show that Planck's Law is false have been carried out.

...and let's look at your claims:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's

Do you need me to explain any of this?


Surface Detail wrote: If so, you should be able to link to some documentary evidence of this. Where is your evidence?

Exactly. You seem to understand the situation quite clearly.

Your example?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 22:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Asking you to provide some evidence to support your claims is not bullying.

Politely asking you for an example of your claim isn't bullying either. I will happily answer your question ... when you show a modicum of respect and answer mine. If you are going to be a disrespectful piece of chit, then you can blome E.


Surface Detail wrote:You claimed that many experiments attempting to show that Planck's Law is false have been carried out.

...and let's look at your claims:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's

Do you need me to explain any of this?


Surface Detail wrote: If so, you should be able to link to some documentary evidence of this. Where is your evidence?

Exactly. You seem to understand the situation quite clearly.

Your example?


.

I'm not the one claiming that certain experiments have been carried out. You are. Where's your evidence?
12-10-2016 22:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not the one claiming that certain experiments have been carried out. You are. Where's your evidence?

I'm not the one claiming:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's

Where's your example?

You are a completely dishonest moron.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 22:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
In conjunction with the aforementioned mathematics or logic, does a model predict.

Also, I mean "in practice," or "in operation", just so you know. I thought that "functionally" was equivalent to that.


No. Same answer.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
In the case of Planck's, there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included.

You made a claim here. Now back it up or admit you're bullshitting. What experiments?

Hey, dumbass, blome E. Do you honestly believe that I'm going to be thrown off by your lame attempts to bully me?

Obviously not. You are the king of abuse.
Give me an example of YOUR claim or kiss smaiyass. The fact that you don't have a single example is the answer to your stupid question.

Let's review:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

We can examine your bulslhit all day. We're done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. Why? Let's review:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

We will continue with this topic when something changes, dumbass. You finally acknowledged the lack of any experiments showing something radiating in violation of Planck's. You have the answer to your question.


Oh, what the heck, let's say it one more time:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's.

Would you like to add anything?


You forgot the closing insult.


.





How do I show you right now the no successful tests falsifying[/quote]


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Specify. "There are so many studies showing that pigs fly.

I am not aware of any studies that concluded that pigs can fly under their own power.


.


There are none. There are also no studies showing that gases follow Planck's. Dispute that? Show the studies.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Specify.

"There are so many studies showing that pigs fly. They even tested outside of airplanes." - If you posted this, I would ask for the specific studies. The same applies for your WACKY statement that gases, despite having no surface and thus no surface area, can somehow have a spectral radiance, which is required for Planck's.


Airplanes fly. Pigs don't. If you drop a pig out of an airplane, it falls. It doesn't fly.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not the one claiming that certain experiments have been carried out. You are. Where's your evidence?

I'm not the one claiming:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's

Where's your example?

All of them. Pick any ten gases, wavelengths, temperatures at random, and I'll bet they won't all follow Planck.

You are a completely dishonest moron.


I believe you messed up the pronoun there. That should be "I".


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:Obviously not. You are the king of abuse.

You forgot the closing insult.

Excellent post. No content. A couple of petty insults. Well done.

How do you account for "greenhouse effect's" additional energy created by EM radiating in just the right direction?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 22:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not the one claiming that certain experiments have been carried out. You are. Where's your evidence?

I'm not the one claiming:

* Gases radiate.
* You insist gases don't adhere to Planck's
* As far as you know there isn't a single example of any gas not adhering to Planck's

Where's your example?

You are a completely dishonest moron.

Yes to the first two points; no to the third point. No gas adheres to Planck's Law because Planck's Law applies to black bodies, not gases. Any textbook on radiative physics will tell you that.

You, however, have claimed that "there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false". This should be easy for you to substantiate: just give a link to a paper, article or book describing one of the experiments you are referring to.
Edited on 12-10-2016 22:40
12-10-2016 22:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote: No gas adheres to Planck's Law because Planck's Law applies to black bodies, not gases.

Planck's uses an ideal blackbody as a "reference" but Planck's applies to everything, including gases, which is why all gases radiate per Planck's.

Were you saying you had an example of this not being the case?

I didn't think so. Go take a physics class.

Surface Detail wrote: Any textbook on radiative physics will tell you that.

Where does Planck's law mention "black body"? Oh, that's right. Planck's is a formal expression of a relationship. That whole block body reference is a conceptual aid to understanding that relationship but the relationship itself applies to everything, not to nothing.

So, let's have that example of a gas radiating in violation of Planck's.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-10-2016 22:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Obviously not. You are the king of abuse.

You forgot the closing insult.

Excellent post. No content. A couple of petty insults. Well done.

Thanks, I learned from the best.
How do you account for "greenhouse effect's" additional energy created by EM radiating in just the right direction?


No additional energy is created if you look at the Sun-Earth-space system. Looking at the nonisolated Earth system, back-radiation results in more energy in the system.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: No additional energy is created if you look at the Sun-Earth-space system.

So the temperature does NOT increase, correct?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate hurricanes during the ice age?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
Ice3409-06-2019 20:26
Mike Pompeo: Melting Arctic Ice Presents New Trade Opportunities028-05-2019 15:33
▲ 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