Remember me
▼ Content

hurricanes during the ice age?



Page 3 of 4<1234>
12-10-2016 22:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The energy within the Sun-Earth-space system does not decrease, correct.
12-10-2016 22:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The energy within the Sun-Earth-space system does not decrease, correct.

That is not a valid answer to the question.

You've started EVADING already, haven't you?


.


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 22:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is a valid answer. What are we looking at? S-E-S or just Earth?
12-10-2016 23:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
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.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!
Edited on 12-10-2016 23:01
13-10-2016 02:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship. It's clear and straightforward. It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to be a moron


Surface Detail wrote:Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases.

It applies. Where's your example?

Surface Detail wrote:It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon,

...and you'll show me everything except one example of what you claim.

Cough it up.


.


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
13-10-2016 02:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, I have never claimed that any experiments have been performed to determine the applicability or otherwise of Planck's Law to gases. Indeed, I don't think that any such experiment has been performed, given that it would be pointless to do so. Why, then do you expect me to give evidence of such an experiment?

You, on the other hand, have claimed that "there have been many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false, i.e. the scientific method. Gases were included." Yet you refuse to give any details of these experiments. Why is that?
13-10-2016 03:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

It's clear and straightforward.


Then why don't you demonstrate using it to get the H2 spectral graph?

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to be a moron.

Bulverism sucks, yeah.
Surface Detail wrote:Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases.

It applies. Where's your example?

Where's yours?
Surface Detail wrote:It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon,

...and you'll show me everything except one example of what you claim.

Cough it up.


.


Why not you? Show us one measurement or study that supports your claim.


"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!
13-10-2016 03:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann, I have never claimed that any experiments have been performed to determine the applicability or otherwise of Planck's Law to gases...blah, blah, blah

Your weaseling is annoying. All this to get out of admitting that you know of no example of any gas not radiating according to Planck's,...

...whick shoots down your assertion that Planck's does not apply,

... which forces you to acknowledge that the earth, with its atmosphere is a body,

... which forces you to acknowledge that the earth must adhere to Stefan-Boltzmann, which can be derived from Planck's,

... which blows your stupid "greenhouse effect" violation out of the water.

I consider your king tipped. The moment you start EVADING, you lose. I'm not going to waste my time further.



.


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
13-10-2016 03:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

Nope. There isn't a single spectral radiance term anywhere in the equation.

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to let your church control your mind.



.


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
13-10-2016 03:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!

Then you've just taken away the ability of CO2 to radiate anything.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 04:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!

Then you've just taken away the ability of CO2 to radiate anything.


CO2 can radiate, it just doesn't radiate from a surface.


"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!
13-10-2016 04:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

Nope. There isn't a single spectral radiance term anywhere in the equation.

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to let your church control your mind.



.


I am completely and utterly stunned. How can you claim to know anything about Planck's Law if you get this wrong?

I should still listen, though. I'll hear you out. What does Planck's Law output? For reference:




"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!
13-10-2016 04:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann, I have never claimed that any experiments have been performed to determine the applicability or otherwise of Planck's Law to gases...blah, blah, blah

Your weaseling is annoying.

As is yours, but that's irrelevant.
All this to get out of admitting that you know of no example of any gas not radiating according to Planck's,...

How about "any gas"?
...which shoots down your assertion that Planck's does not apply,

If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.
... which forces you to acknowledge that the earth, with its atmosphere is a body,

It is a distinct material object, yes.
... which forces you to acknowledge that the earth must adhere to Stefan-Boltzmann, which can be derived from Planck's,

Except that the emissions from Earth don't follow the Planckian distribution, so it... doesn't adhere to Planck. Which means why would it adhere to S-B?
... which blows your stupid "greenhouse effect" violation out of the water.

"If FALSE then X" is always true, yes.

I consider your king tipped. The moment you start EVADING, you lose. I'm not going to waste my time further.



.


"No, I won this! It's over, and I won! Right, Mommy?"

"Sure, dear, just don't tip over the board - IB! Stop that!"


"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!
13-10-2016 05:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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.

Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface. Since gases don't have surfaces, Planck's Law cannot apply to gases. It's that simple. We've already shown you the line emission spectra of hydrogen and neon, which obviously bear no resemblance at all to the black body curve predicted by Planck's Law.

Anyway, where is your link to one of the "many experiments attempting to show that Planck's is false" that you claim have been performed? Come on, we haven't got all night!

Then you've just taken away the ability of CO2 to radiate anything.


CO2 can radiate, it just doesn't radiate from a surface.


1) Define 'surface'.
2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

They are circular arguments.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.


Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.


IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.


They are circular arguments.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.


"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!
13-10-2016 06:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.
2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


"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!
13-10-2016 09:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.


Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.


IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.


They are circular arguments.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.


Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 09:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.

This seems insufficient and vague. After all, a solid is mostly empty space. So is my hand. Why can't I put my hand, which is mostly empty space, through a metal bar, which is mostly empty space? Why can I put my hand into a liquid or a gas without resistance? After all, liquids have a surface that is obvious, just like a solid.

All have mass. Just what exactly is a 'surface' anyway?

jwoodward48 wrote:

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 10:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

No, you misunderstand. Kirchhoff's Law states that the absorptivity at a particular wavelength is equal to the emissivity at a particular wavelength. It doesn't say that absorptivity and emissivity can't vary with wavelength. It is therefore perfectly possible for a substance to be a good absorber (and emitter) at one wavelength and a poor absorber (and emitter) at another wavelength.
Edited on 13-10-2016 10:26
13-10-2016 10:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance of a surface.

Planck's is a relationship.

Between temperature, frequency, and spectral radiance.

Nope. There isn't a single spectral radiance term anywhere in the equation.

It's a pity you can't read it. It's also a pity your religion prohibits you from learning it. It must suck to let your church control your mind.


I am completely and utterly stunned. How can you claim to know anything about Planck's Law if you get this wrong?

I should still listen, though. I'll hear you out. What does Planck's Law output? For reference:


Ha, ha, how hilarious! IbdaMann has been arguing the whole time that Planck's Law somehow applies to gases, when he obviously has no idea what Planck's Law actually states. What an idiot!
13-10-2016 14:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote: Ha, ha, how hilarious! IbdaMann has been arguing the whole time that Planck's Law somehow applies to gases, when he obviously has no idea what Planck's Law actually states.

I see you've shifted back to your ad hominem in defense of your religion.

So, you finally have an example of a gas that radiates in violation of Planck's?

Surface Detail wrote: What an idiot!

You can't come up with a single example therefore I'm an idiot.

Let me bask in your UK brilliance.

"greenhouse effect" is still FALSE. You're going to have to try something other than denying science.


.


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
13-10-2016 14:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote: What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak,

You don't know that. Gases are a good counterexample.

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. This in turn means ...

...therefore it doesn't mean that.


.


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
13-10-2016 14:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Ha, ha, how hilarious! IbdaMann has been arguing the whole time that Planck's Law somehow applies to gases, when he obviously has no idea what Planck's Law actually states.

I see you've shifted back to your ad hominem in defense of your religion.

So, you finally have an example of a gas that radiates in violation of Planck's?

Surface Detail wrote: What an idiot!

You can't come up with a single example therefore I'm an idiot.

Let me bask in your UK brilliance.

"greenhouse effect" is still FALSE. You're going to have to try something other than denying science.

It wasn't me who claimed that experiments have been performed to attempt to falsify Planck's Law for gases. It was you. We're still waiting for you to give any details about these supposed experiments though. Unless you can, we'll assume you're lying.
13-10-2016 14:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak,

You don't know that. Gases are a good counterexample.

Yes he does, because he understands that the derivative of Planck's Law has only one turning point, hence only one peak.

Gases don't emit according to Planck's Law because they aren't black bodies. They emit as isolated molecules. You do seem to be having considerable trouble grasping this simple fact.
13-10-2016 16:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:Yes he does, because he understands that the derivative of Planck's Law has only one turning point, hence only one peak.

No he doesn't, Bozo, because neither of you understand what a function's domain is. It is extremely humorous to watch you insist otherwise.

The answer to your question lies in the reason you have no example of any gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Surface Detail wrote:Gases don't emit according to Planck's Law because they aren't black bodies.

You have demonstrated your religion-induced scientific illiteracy sufficiently that we can just assume it for your convenience, ... so you don't have to demonstrate it anymore.

Surface Detail wrote: They emit as isolated molecules.

Great! You have a very intellectually dishonest way of admitting that you were wrong. So are we done?

Is this your explanation of why you will never have an example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's?

Here's the big challenge: Will you write/post the words "Gases admittedly radiate according to Planck's" or is that just strictly prohibited by your faith?


.


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
13-10-2016 16:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Yes he does, because he understands that the derivative of Planck's Law has only one turning point, hence only one peak.

No he doesn't, Bozo, because neither of you understand what a function's domain is. It is extremely humorous to watch you insist otherwise.

The answer to your question lies in the reason you have no example of any gas radiating in violation of Planck's.

Surface Detail wrote:Gases don't emit according to Planck's Law because they aren't black bodies.

You have demonstrated your religion-induced scientific illiteracy sufficiently that we can just assume it for your convenience, ... so you don't have to demonstrate it anymore.

Surface Detail wrote: They emit as isolated molecules.

Great! You have a very intellectually dishonest way of admitting that you were wrong. So are we done?

Is this your explanation of why you will never have an example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's?

Here's the big challenge: Will you write/post the words "Gases admittedly radiate according to Planck's" or is that just strictly prohibited by your faith?

Which fact is it that you dispute? That Planck's Law applies solely to black bodies, or that gas is not a black body? Or both?
13-10-2016 17:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote: Which fact is it that you dispute?

I don't dispute facts. I dispel your delusions.

Planck's applies everywhere at all times. Only outside that does Planck's not apply. Your claims that science does not apply where your religion is concerned is as tired a refrain as it is absurd, but is apparently one that doesn't grow old for you.

Your idiocy is in confusing the radiation graph of something that does not exist with the applicability of Planck's to everything that exists. Part of the problem is that apparently your British education has left you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "applicability." Another part of the problem is that you are devoted to a WACKY religion that prohibits you from understanding basic concepts that put your faith in jeopardy. Why are you even asking questions about this topic if you are required to deny the science involved. Another part of the problem is that you have an insufficient understanding of basic math to read equations. How were you ever expecting to gain any traction in the discussion?

Have you noticed that you have no example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Let me guess, you haven't noticed ... or at least you won't admit to it. Your problem is right there. Your religion requires you to glorify the physics violation-riddled dogma, to not question the dogma and to not doubt any of the WACKY claims from your church, i.e. the very antithesis of science. In fact, science itself is to be denied ... through declarations of "non-applicability." It's no wonder you are scientifically illiterate.


.


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
13-10-2016 18:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which fact is it that you dispute?

I don't dispute facts. I dispel your delusions.

Planck's applies everywhere at all times. Only outside that does Planck's not apply. Your claims that science does not apply where your religion is concerned is as tired a refrain as it is absurd, but is apparently one that doesn't grow old for you.

Your idiocy is in confusing the radiation graph of something that does not exist with the applicability of Planck's to everything that exists. Part of the problem is that apparently your British education has left you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "applicability." Another part of the problem is that you are devoted to a WACKY religion that prohibits you from understanding basic concepts that put your faith in jeopardy. Why are you even asking questions about this topic if you are required to deny the science involved. Another part of the problem is that you have an insufficient understanding of basic math to read equations. How were you ever expecting to gain any traction in the discussion?

Have you noticed that you have no example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Let me guess, you haven't noticed ... or at least you won't admit to it. Your problem is right there. Your religion requires you to glorify the physics violation-riddled dogma, to not question the dogma and to not doubt any of the WACKY claims from your church, i.e. the very antithesis of science. In fact, science itself is to be denied ... through declarations of "non-applicability." It's no wonder you are scientifically illiterate.

It's a simple question. Which statement do you dispute?

1) Planck's Law applies solely to black bodies.
2) Gas is not a black body.
3) Both.

No need for another rant, but feel free if it makes you feel better. It would help if you'd answer the question, though, just so I know where you stand on the basics.
13-10-2016 19:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:It's a simple question. Which statement do you dispute?

1) Planck's Law applies solely to black bodies.
2) Gas is not a black body.
3) Both.

No need for another rant, but feel free if it makes you feel better. It would help if you'd answer the question, though, just so I know where you stand on the basics.


Were you going to answer my question? I answered yours and you still ignored it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me thereafter, shame on me.

Reread my post(s). Go back to school.

.


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
13-10-2016 19:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.


Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.


IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.


They are circular arguments.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.


Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.


Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument. I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.


"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!
13-10-2016 19:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It's a simple question. Which statement do you dispute?

1) Planck's Law applies solely to black bodies.
2) Gas is not a black body.
3) Both.

No need for another rant, but feel free if it makes you feel better. It would help if you'd answer the question, though, just so I know where you stand on the basics.


Were you going to answer my question? I answered yours and you still ignored it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me thereafter, shame on me.

Reread my post(s). Go back to school.

Why don't you just answer my question? Why so evasive?

Also, which question of yours have I ignored?
13-10-2016 19:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.

This seems insufficient and vague. After all, a solid is mostly empty space. So is my hand. Why can't I put my hand, which is mostly empty space, through a metal bar, which is mostly empty space? Why can I put my hand into a liquid or a gas without resistance? After all, liquids have a surface that is obvious, just like a solid.


That's irrelevant. A solid has a clear boundary between itself and everything else, as does a liquid - but a gas does not, unless it is constrained. Solids and liquids don't need to be constrained in order to keep their volume. Gases do.

All have mass. Just what exactly is a 'surface' anyway?


Nothing to do with mass. Just the boundary between a given something and everything that isn't that something. Solids have surfaces, liquids have surfaces, since they don't naturally expand. Gases naturally expand, so unless they are constrained, they won't have a surface - the atmosphere blends with the vacuum. Where does the atmosphere end and space begin?

jwoodward48 wrote:

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.

No, it's not. First of all, I am stating that a given substance can be opaque to one wavelength and transparent to another, which is definitely true. But to counter your point, that's not true - even in a gas, molecules have so many collisions every second that it's more likely that the absorbed radiation will go toward heating up the gas; the gas will then radiate its emission spectrum in all directions, including down. The radiation that goes down will mostly be absorbed by the Earth (barring re-absorption and re-emission, which just complicates things but doesn't change this fact). When a photon strikes the Earth, the ground doesn't know what temperature the radiating body was that produced the photon. It only knows what wavelength the radiation has - and we know that the Earth is a good absorber of longwave radiation. It won't all be reflected. Much will be absorbed. This increases the temperature, since the Earth is also getting solar radiation.

You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.


Planck's is not applicable. The Planckian distribution does not match up with the Earthly radiation seen from space - this has a continuous domain, by the 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!
13-10-2016 19:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:Why don't you just answer my question?

I explained this to you as well. You apparently ignored that too, just to be thorough.

Surface Detail wrote: Also, which question of yours have I ignored?

Just the example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's per its temperature and wavelength. You insist that gases don't adhere to Planck's so you must have at least one example.

Once you get me that example I'll consider Planck's not applying to gases.


.


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
13-10-2016 19:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: What I do know:

1. Planck's will only ever output one peak,

You don't know that. Gases are a good counterexample.

Again, I do not mean "peak" as in "surrounded by points not in the domain". I mean "peak" as in either "local maximum", if f is continuous at that point, or:

a is defined to be the greatest point in the domain of f that is less than x. b is defined to be the smallest point in the domain of f that is greater than x. x is a peak if f(x) is strictly greater than both f(a) and f(b).

But a better way of looking at this might be:

Planck will only give a positive slope as you go from left to right, until it reaches the Wien peak, and then it will only give a negative slope.

My posted graph shows positive, then negative, then positive, then negative slope. That cannot be done with Planck, even by removing parts of the domain: does removing a point change the derivative of nearby points? No! Of course not.

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. This in turn means ...

...therefore it doesn't mean that.


.


You show a dire lack of understanding of logic.

If the antecendent is false, that does not invalidate the statement "A => B". I could show that "the Earth is made of Swiss cheese" implies "the Earth is made of cheese," and if the former is A and the latter is B, the statement "A => B" is entirely correct.


"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!
13-10-2016 19:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Why don't you just answer my question?

I explained this to you as well. You apparently ignored that too, just to be thorough.

You didn't answer my question. You keep claiming you did, but you didn't. Why are you so reluctant to clarify your position? Do you consider gases to be black bodies, or don't you? A simple yes or no will suffice.


Surface Detail wrote: Also, which question of yours have I ignored?

Just the example of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's per its temperature and wavelength. You insist that gases don't adhere to Planck's so you must have at least one example.

Once you get me that example I'll consider Planck's not applying to gases.

As I've already repeatedly explained, I can't give you such an example because, AFAIK, no experiments have been performed to determine whether or not gases follow Planck's Law. Planck's Law was formulated to give the spectral radiance of the surface of a black body and is simply not applicable to gases. Why would anyone waste time trying to demonstrate something that clearly isn't true? It's quite obvious that the radiation emitted by a gas depends on the nature of the gas and its density as well as its temperature. Spectroscopy exists!
13-10-2016 19:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote: Again, I do not mean "peak" as in "surrounded by points not in the domain". I mean "peak" as in either "local maximum", if f is continuous at that point, or:

a is defined to be the greatest point in the domain of f that is less than x. b is defined to be the smallest point in the domain of f that is greater than x. x is a peak if f(x) is strictly greater than both f(a) and f(b).

False. What if your domain is discontinuous, i.e. in the case of gases?

jwoodward48 wrote: But a better way of looking at this might be:

Not at all. You only offer more convoluted ways of looking at it.

Just focus on Planck's. Focus on the domain of the gas in question. If you can't figure it out then perhaps you shouldn't be in this discussion.

jwoodward48 wrote: You show a dire lack of understanding of logic.

Bring it on baby, bring it on.

jwoodward48 wrote: If the antecendent is false, that does not invalidate the statement "A => B".

Now all you have to do is show where I have stated that an implication is rendered invalid by a false antecedent.

Hint: I never said that.

Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

Bring it on baby, bring it on.

IBdaMann: 1
jwoodward48: 0


.


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
13-10-2016 20:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Again, I do not mean "peak" as in "surrounded by points not in the domain". I mean "peak" as in either "local maximum", if f is continuous at that point, or:

a is defined to be the greatest point in the domain of f that is less than x. b is defined to be the smallest point in the domain of f that is greater than x. x is a peak if f(x) is strictly greater than both f(a) and f(b).

False. What if your domain is discontinuous, i.e. in the case of gases?

That is how I am defining peak in order to include discontinuous domains.

If the domain is not continuous, then my definition still works.
jwoodward48 wrote: But a better way of looking at this might be:

Not at all. You only offer more convoluted ways of looking at it.

Just focus on Planck's. Focus on the domain of the gas in question. If you can't figure it out then perhaps you shouldn't be in this discussion.

You can't do that! You can't tell me not to use the slope! Control freak?
jwoodward48 wrote: You show a dire lack of understanding of logic.

Bring it on baby, bring it on.

jwoodward48 wrote: If the antecendent is false, that does not invalidate the statement "A => B".

Now all you have to do is show where I have stated that an implication is rendered invalid by a false antecedent.

I never said that you said the implication is rendered invalid. The implication is the consequent. I said that you said the conditional statement was invalid.

Hint: I never said that.

You effectively said "since your first point is wrong, your first point doesn't imply your second". You said "it [my first point] doesn't mean that [my second point]."

Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

No, it renders the conditional statement true. The consequent has not been rendered true or false.
Bring it on baby, bring it on.

[quote]IBdaMann: 1
jwoodward48: 0


.


"I'm right! You're all wrong and I won this debate, it's over, I won!!!1"


"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!
13-10-2016 20:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote: That is how I am defining peak in order to include discontinuous domains.

Then you have a hefty problem. Each and every discontinuous segment is going to have its own peak/local maximum. That adds up to more than one.

You're not going to be able to get around this one.

jwoodward48 wrote:I never said that you said the implication is rendered invalid.

You were using it as your example as to how I know nothing of logic.

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

IBdaMann: 2
jwoodward48: 0


jwoodward48 wrote:
Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

No, it renders the conditional statement true. The consequent has not been rendered true or false.

You don't lose a point here. You just need to brush up on your terminology.

"A -> B" is an implication
"A" is the antecedent
"B" is the consequent

If the antecedent is false, the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.


.


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
13-10-2016 20:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: That is how I am defining peak in order to include discontinuous domains.

Then you have a hefty problem. Each and every discontinuous segment is going to have its own peak/local maximum. That adds up to more than one.

You're not going to be able to get around this one.

You idiot! You utterly incompetent moronic nincompoop!

Not every segment has a local maximum!
jwoodward48 wrote:I never said that you said the implication is rendered invalid.

You were using it as your example as to how I know nothing of logic.

No, I wasn't.
jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.
IBdaMann: 2
jwoodward48: 0

Nice objective ruling, Judge!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Hint: A false antecedent renders an implication TRUE

No, it renders the conditional statement true. The consequent has not been rendered true or false.

You don't lose a point here. You just need to brush up on your terminology.

"A -> B" is an implication
"A" is the antecedent
"B" is the consequent

If the antecedent is false, the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.


.


No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".


"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!
Page 3 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