Remember me
▼ Content

I have a theory



Page 3 of 3<123
19-10-2016 20:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I've got Kerbal space program too

Of course I understand that spacecraft operate just fine in thermosphere

I'm just pointing out that if you try and apply you and Tweedledee's insane ramblings to real life It don't work.

I don't believe a word you say, remember.
19-10-2016 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
I've got Kerbal space program too

Of course I understand that spacecraft operate just fine in thermosphere

I'm just pointing out that if you try and apply you and Tweedledee's insane ramblings to real life It don't work.

I don't believe a word you say, remember.


No, you just stubbornly keep claiming exceptions to physical laws to justify your religion.


The Parrot Killer
20-10-2016 00:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I've got Kerbal space program too

Of course I understand that spacecraft operate just fine in thermosphere

I'm just pointing out that if you try and apply you and Tweedledee's insane ramblings to real life It don't work.

I don't believe a word you say, remember.


No, you just stubbornly keep claiming exceptions to physical laws to justify your religion.



According to your "physical laws" the spacecraft is inside a substance that radiates exactly the same as a black body which would mean it's attempting to operate at the boiling point of lead, the fact that you are too much of an imbecile to see that is not my problem.

Which is why I think that actual physical laws are more likely found in textbooks rather then on obscure unmoderated internet forums.


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.
20-10-2016 00:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: According to your "physical laws"

...and we sit back and listen to the strange position you attempt to impose on your opponent.

Then you'll make a lame attempt to mock him for the position you assigned to him.

I wonder if that will work. Hmmmm. I wonder who will be fooled by that. Hmmm.


spot wrote: Which is why I think that actual physical laws are more likely found in textbooks rather then on obscure unmoderated internet forums.

So why do you insist on absorbing only WACKY religious dogma from warmizombie websites?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2016 01:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: According to your "physical laws"

...and we sit back and listen to the strange position you attempt to impose on your opponent.

Then you'll make a lame attempt to mock him for the position you assigned to him.

I wonder if that will work. Hmmmm. I wonder who will be fooled by that. Hmmm.


spot wrote: Which is why I think that actual physical laws are more likely found in textbooks rather then on obscure unmoderated internet forums.

So why do you insist on absorbing only WACKY religious dogma from warmizombie websites?


.


I'm not imposing, I'm explaining the implications of your position.


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.
20-10-2016 02:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I've got Kerbal space program too

Of course I understand that spacecraft operate just fine in thermosphere

I'm just pointing out that if you try and apply you and Tweedledee's insane ramblings to real life It don't work.

I don't believe a word you say, remember.


No, you just stubbornly keep claiming exceptions to physical laws to justify your religion.



According to your "physical laws" the spacecraft is inside a substance that radiates exactly the same as a black body which would mean it's attempting to operate at the boiling point of lead, the fact that you are too much of an imbecile to see that is not my problem.

Which is why I think that actual physical laws are more likely found in textbooks rather then on obscure unmoderated internet forums.


1) air is not a black body.
2) The thermosphere is so thin that it is barely there at all. A spacecraft operating there heated by conduction from the thermosphere is not going to get heated much. Such a craft is much denser than the air that's heating it. Radiation is the bigger problem, but one that is easily solved. It is obvious you don't know the first thing about heating by conduction.
3) Plank's law still applies, even in the thermosphere. It applies always, not just ideal black body curves.
4) Since you deem the value of an 'unmoderated' forum (this forum actually is, and people have been kicked off of it before) so low, why are you arguing your point here?
5) Since you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of Planck's law, methods of heat conduction and how they work, have no understanding of domains, and generally just keep pushing your Religious views instead, you are the last one to talk about physics.


The Parrot Killer
20-10-2016 02:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: According to your "physical laws"

...and we sit back and listen to the strange position you attempt to impose on your opponent.

Then you'll make a lame attempt to mock him for the position you assigned to him.

I wonder if that will work. Hmmmm. I wonder who will be fooled by that. Hmmm.


spot wrote: Which is why I think that actual physical laws are more likely found in textbooks rather then on obscure unmoderated internet forums.

So why do you insist on absorbing only WACKY religious dogma from warmizombie websites?


.


I'm not imposing, I'm explaining the implications of your position.


No, you are contriving stupid conclusions to impose your Religious views upon people.


The Parrot Killer
20-10-2016 14:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political
20-10-2016 14:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political

So we're done?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2016 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political


You were not applying the formula. You were contriving a stupid conclusion to push your Religious views.

I doubt you even now HOW to apply the formula.


The Parrot Killer
21-10-2016 09:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political


You were not applying the formula. You were contriving a stupid conclusion to push your Religious views.

I doubt you even now HOW to apply the formula.


I simply asked for clarification, How do you then Apply a formula that is to do with blackbodys to to the thermospere?

Please don't mention religious issues or politics.


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.
21-10-2016 10:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Oh good grief. Is this STILL going on? Over and over and over again ad nauseum:

From:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-the-greenhouse-effect-does-not-violate-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-d6-e1016.php

----------------------
Surface Detail wrote:

What? Now you're contradicting yourself. You're the one claiming that radiation is emitted strictly in accordance with Planck's Law at all times. The examples that you've just given contradict your claim, not mine!


They not only contradict themselves, they contradict each other (see below quotes).
Into the Night wrote:
Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.


IBdaMann wrote:First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.


What they don't appear to comprehend, (despite you trying to explain several times to them) is that they are both contradicting Max Planck:

http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/blackbody_radiation
http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/Planck%27s_law

When IB didn't even recognise what the blackbody temperature curves in the graph you posted were, and told you to 'remove them', it was hilarious. As was ITN asserting that "Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation".


Typical of autodidacts who pick up bits of information here and there but never study a subject fully in an environment where their mistakes and misunderstandings would get picked up, and the huge gaps in their knowledge would get filled. They never seem to realise just how incompetent they are because there was no-one to correct them when they go wrong. Combine that with ideological/religiously induced stupidity, extreme confirmation bias, and sheer arrogance and you get people like IB and ITN who seriously believe they are 'experts' and will not listen to anyone trying to show them where they are going wrong.

They'll never go read that source from ACS you provided (which would clearly show them where they are going wrong), because they already believe they 'know it all!'

All they would need to do would be to search for Planck's Law and blackbody radiation from an authoritative source which explains it in the context of Max Planck's original work. Instead they are convinced that characteristics that only apply to a theoretical blackbody in equilibrium that is a perfect absorber and emitter of EM (not found in nature) applies to 'everything, all the time'

From wrong assumptions, they leap to the wrong conclusions that the temperature of the atmosphere (which is NOT a perfect blackbody and NOT a perfect absorber and emitter of EM radiation) has nothing to do with it's composition. Because they believe they are right, they are incapable of seeing it when you show them that graph which shows they are wrong.

They just go straight back to their baseless assertions and pseudoscience waffle and tell you you're wrong without really being able to explain it coherently. And of course, they can never provide any support from authoritative sources, but will completely dismiss yours. Over and over and over and over again ad nauseum until they wear you down with the same nonsense they have been repeating for years, and you give up in exasperation. Then of course they claim 'victory' because you couldn't be bothered wasting your time any more


That's why I've found it's a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to people who reject science like the 'greenhouse' effect, evolution, age of the earth etc especially if it's because of their deeply held ideological/religious beliefs.

Oh.... and they also didn't have a clue what the graphs I posted showed or signified. They would be self-explanatory to most people who have even fairly basic knowledge about this subject.
------------------


By the way, note how in that thread Into the Night uses the term 'evolutionist'? Who does that? Other than someone who doesn't accept evolution because of their religious beliefs?

As they aren't capable of rational discussions, you might as well have some fun just mocking them rather than engaging with them directly.




Edited on 21-10-2016 11:17
21-10-2016 11:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
What I have learned is that Max Planck is like Jesus and Mohammed in having what he said being twisted by people with an agenda.
21-10-2016 11:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
The only difference is that it's just baffling rather then horrific.
21-10-2016 13:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: What I have learned is that Max Planck is like Jesus and Mohammed in having what he said being twisted by people with an agenda.

Do you mean like religious people using Planck's as a justification for claiming that science "doesn't apply" to Global Warming? ... like any religion claims about science, yes?

Do you have any concrete examples of Planck's law being "twisted" for a political agenda? I have some examples to share. Some people on this very forum have claimed that there are gases that radiate in violation of Planck's ... as a result of the miraculous, physics-defying force of the Climate goddess. You might have read that. Of course never has any measured E at any W and T been provided that is not what Planck's says it will be but that fact merely detracts from the beauty and resolve of the overarching dogma.

Do you have any examples on your end?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2016 15:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Sorry my comments weren't addressed at you I was talking about you not too you.

Any progress on how exactly you apply Planck's law to the thermospere? Still waiting on that explanation.
21-10-2016 17:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: Sorry my comments weren't addressed at you I was talking about you not too you.

No worries. My comments were nonetheless addressed to you. I'm able to talk about you while I talk to you. It's just a gift.

spot wrote: Any progress on how exactly you apply Planck's law to the thermospere? Still waiting on that explanation.

In the thermosphere you apply Planck's in this manner:




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 21-10-2016 17:53
21-10-2016 19:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
IBdaMann wrote:

In the thermosphere you apply Planck's in this manner:




.


I keep getting melting spacecraft if I do, you're the super genius. go through it step by step.


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.
21-10-2016 20:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:I keep getting melting spacecraft if I do, you're the super genius. go through it step by step.

I'm happy to help you out but I can't tell you what errors you are making unless you show me your work.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2016 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political


You were not applying the formula. You were contriving a stupid conclusion to push your Religious views.

I doubt you even now HOW to apply the formula.


I simply asked for clarification, How do you then Apply a formula that is to do with blackbodys to to the thermospere?

Please don't mention religious issues or politics.


Planck's law can be applied to gases as well. It does not require a black body.


The Parrot Killer
21-10-2016 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
They not only contradict themselves, they contradict each other (see below quotes).
Into the Night wrote:
Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.


IBdaMann wrote:First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.



Taking stuff out of context again so you can construct a bogus argument to known down as a strawman?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-10-2016 21:33
21-10-2016 22:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political


You were not applying the formula. You were contriving a stupid conclusion to push your Religious views.

I doubt you even now HOW to apply the formula.


I simply asked for clarification, How do you then Apply a formula that is to do with blackbodys to to the thermospere?

Please don't mention religious issues or politics.


Planck's law can be applied to gases as well. It does not require a black body.


How? I get melting spaceships.


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.
21-10-2016 22:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: How? I get melting spaceships.

You're probably just applying it incorrectly. Show me you're work and I'll help you see where you are messing up and we can fix it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2016 00:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I think it's because as far as I'm aware its to do with black bodies not diffuse gasses so treating the themosphere as a blackbody gives that result. I'm not a super-genius like you so perhaps if you show me how you apply it so as to get the correct results would be helpful.
This also show where everyone else who looked into this since Fourier went wrong. I would not want to waste time discussing Marxism or obscure logical fallacy's or religion with you though.

I understand its obvious to you but have patience with us mere mortals.
22-10-2016 18:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:I think it's because as far as I'm aware its to do with black bodies not diffuse gasses so treating the themosphere as a blackbody gives that result.

Gases are not bodies. Gas molecules, however, are.

Molecules in the thermosphere can have very high quantities of thermal energy (temperature) and will each radiate per Planck's. It's just that there are so few of them that their combined radiating power is very, very low ... like that of a larger cold body.
.
spot wrote:I'm not a super-genius like you so perhaps if you show me how you apply it so as to get the correct results would be helpful. .

Sure, and thank you for asking politely.

Of course everything would depend on your location in the thermosphere, but you would need to assume a molecular density, i.e. a certain number of molecules per volume appropriate for the thermosphere.

Calculate the total E for a molecule at one of those high temperatures and then multiply by your small number of estimated molecules.

That's your answer.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2016 19:56
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I thought molecules are mostly empty space.
22-10-2016 20:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:I thought molecules are mostly empty space.

You can certainly think of molecules that way. According to our model of molecules, all matter is mostly empty space.

No one has ever directly observed a molecule but you should go with whatever mental image helps you best understand the behavior of matter.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2016 22:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
I thought molecules are mostly empty space.

Indeed they are. The idea that they have some sort of surface from which to radiate is absurdly naive.
Edited on 22-10-2016 22:52
22-10-2016 22:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
All I did was apply the formula that was linked when I asked for clarification that's not religious or political


You were not applying the formula. You were contriving a stupid conclusion to push your Religious views.

I doubt you even now HOW to apply the formula.


I simply asked for clarification, How do you then Apply a formula that is to do with blackbodys to to the thermospere?

Please don't mention religious issues or politics.


Planck's law can be applied to gases as well. It does not require a black body.

How can Planck's Law be applied to a gas? How could you measure the spectral radiance of a gas?
22-10-2016 23:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:The idea that [molecules] have some sort of surface from which to radiate is absurdly naive.

The idea that you somehow know that molecules "have no surface" or that you somehow know that molecules violate physics is what is totally absurd. I bet you think that your devout worship of the "Climate" goddess is what bestows this divine "knowledge" upon you.

Equally absurd is your ongoing attempt to convince others that physics somehow does not apply in those select circumstances that you find to be inconvenient for your WACKY religious dogma.

Go say a prayer for "greenhouse effect." It's on its deathbed and it needs your support now more than ever.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2016 23:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:How can Planck's Law be applied to a gas? How could you measure the spectral radiance of a gas?

How can Planck's not apply? Do you deny all of quantum mechanics or just Planck's?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2016 12:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I see, in order to apply the "laws of physics" I have to treat every air molecule as a tiny snooker ball and work out the temperature for each one, no wonder things cannot be measured.

Not what I remember from school or consistent with what I can find out online, but hey I'm not a super genius.
23-10-2016 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:I see, in order to apply the "laws of physics" I have to treat every air molecule as a tiny snooker ball and work out the temperature for each one,

Matter is made of what? Molecules? Are you actually surprised that chemistry works according to how molecules work?


spot wrote: no wonder things cannot be measured.

Well, that and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, I gave you the steps to follow for computing an E in the thermosphere.

spot wrote: Not what I remember from school ...

They didn't teach you about molecules? May I ask what school you attended?

spot wrote: ... or consistent with what I can find out online, but hey I'm not a super genius.

Pull your head out of your WACKY warmizombie websites. The internet is replete with information on molecules.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-10-2016 20:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
They taught me about molecules, it's just that I was taught different than you, I was taught analogies are usefull in helping to understand the thing but they are not the thing, explain how if they behave the way you say they behave, how can we see at all. You should not need to question why I asked that I'd you are indeed a super genius.
24-10-2016 21:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:You should not need to question why I asked that I'd you are indeed a super genius.

Great, so you want to keep it snide. Fine.

You should be taking notes on whatever I tell you. After all, I'm a super genius and you never received a proper education on what matter is.

spot wrote: They taught me about molecules, it's just that I was taught different than you,

Where, exactly, were you taught about molecules?

spot wrote: I was taught analogies are usefull in helping to understand the thing but they are not the thing,

Exactly ... which is essentially what I told you. Pick up a handful of sand. That is the thing. Go with the analogies when you want to acquire a better understanding of what you have in your hand.

spot wrote:explain how if they behave the way you say they behave, how can we see at all.

First elaborate on your understanding of how molecules behave, and based on your understanding why you believe we shouldn't be able to see.

I'll correct any errors in your understanding.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-10-2016 01:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I was taught that molecules and gasses for that matter don't have surfaces. Actually I don't think I was taught that gasses don't have surfaces, its blindly obvious.
25-10-2016 12:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:I was taught that molecules and gasses for that matter don't have surfaces. Actually I don't think I was taught that gasses don't have surfaces, its blindly obvious.

It sounds like you were taught that molecules are gases. I don't know why you conflate the two but it should be obvious that molecules can comprise solids and liquids as well as gases.

Let's go back to your understanding that molecules have no surface. Who told you this and did s/he or they tell you how this was observed?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-10-2016 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Things are looking pretty bad for renewables.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not GreenA multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule.

The uncompetitiveness of renewable generation explains the emphasis pro-renewable energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels put on quota requirements, as well as continued or expanded subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges.


Maybe we should be looking more at coal. Since that whole "greenhouse gas" thing has long-since been debunked, perhaps we should return coal to center stage with a long overdue apology.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Energy.html

Geocraft Coal currently generates about 50% of the electricity used in the U.S., and over 98% of that coal is mined here at home. In 2008 approximately 1.17 billion tons of coal were consumed in the U.S. to produce electricity, steel, plastics, aspirin, cosmetics, asphalt, and a variety of other products. Coal is also a valuable raw material for making liquid fuels like methanol and gasoline, as the Germans were doing during World War II and like the South Africans are doing today.

...

It is astonishing that the great importance of domestic coal to the U.S. energy portolio is seldom, if ever, mentioned by the news media. When it comes to energy, COAL is the greatest security blanket we have. It is our most abundant, reliable, and least expensive energy source.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-10-2016 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
This is quite in line with what I know about the power curve of alternative energy sources.

Here in Washington, for example, we have a lot of wind farms. They are up and down the Columbia basin and especially near the Gorge, where winds funneled through the gap in the mountains from the west can reach consistently brisk speeds.

These wind farms were built largely with government money using the 'green' subsidy program. In other words, taxpayers. To be fair, the hydroelectric dams and the one nuclear power plant we managed to get on line are also largely government funded. We have one functioning coal plant in this State.

If we combine the output of all the wind farms across the entire state, the power produced is less than one tenth the output of one reactor of our single nuclear plant. The nuclear plant is about 1/3 the output of our largest hydroelectric project here, the Grand Coulee dam.

The dam creates Lake Roosevelt (named after the president that began the dam project), a large lake with fishing, boating, recreation, and all manner of benefits, including irrigation for a large part of eastern Washington's orchards and farms.

The nuclear plant needs refueling every couple of years. While the fuel is difficult to handle until the radioactivity dies down, it can be reprocessed, producing new fuel and depleted uranium (non-radioactive material) that is useful as counterweights for our aircraft industry and making armor piercing shells or for any other application that requires a heavy material in a small space.

The nice thing about nuclear is the efficiency. Only 1 ton of fuel can produce the same power as 20 thousand tons of coal. The disposal difficulties seem to pale in comparison to the cost of mining and moving all that coal around with it's attendant losses.

We have lots of coal in parts of the country, however, and it is certainly a great power source. It can burn clean, producing very little sulfur in the air now and much less goes up the chimney as soot (which is wasted energy). The plants themselves have monetary incentives to clean up their stacks. Sooty burns are wasted fuel, and sulfur recovered from the stack collectors can be sold.

Since carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, coal is a great option.
Edited on 28-10-2016 22:19
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate I have a theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?2731-01-2019 00:19
Articles
Theory
▲ 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