Is reason for climate change correct?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Is reason for climate change correct? > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

29-08-2019 22:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: I don't claim anything. YOU are the only one claiming anything. So what would you estimate you're radiating right now?
29-08-2019 23:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I don't claim anything. YOU are the only one claiming anything. So what would you estimate you're radiating right now? Unknown. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2019 23:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I don't claim anything. YOU are the only one claiming anything. So what would you estimate you're radiating right now? Unknown. Do you know how to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation? Would you like a lesson?
29-08-2019 23:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I don't claim anything. YOU are the only one claiming anything. So what would you estimate you're radiating right now? Unknown. Do you know how to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation? Would you like a lesson? What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 eludes you? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2019 23:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 eludes you? Let's see. Did I do it right?: For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97 Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4) (5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W
29-08-2019 23:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 eludes you? Let's see. Did I do it right?: For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97 Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA(T1^4) (5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU. Emissivity is unknown. You simply chose a number out of thick air. The surface area of the the subject is unknown. You simply chose a number out of thick air. So the value of 723W is also just randU out of thick air. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles* Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-08-2019 00:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...723W Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU. It's as much randU as saying a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs though right? It's in a normal range. All the values used are. So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct? Again this was from the textbook: tmiddles wrote: University Physics Volume 2 1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer "EXAMPLE 1.13 Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place
30-08-2019 02:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...723W Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU. It's as much randU as saying a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs though right? It's in a normal range. All the values used are. So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct? With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes. tmiddles wrote: Again this was from the textbook: tmiddles wrote: University Physics Volume 2 1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer "EXAMPLE 1.13 Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place This book is in error. * Emissivity has no frequency. * Radiance doesn't take place in a single band. * There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows in one direction. * There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Heat IS transfer of thermal energy. * The emissivity of human skin is unknown. * Conductive and convective heat are being utterly ignored. * There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. * You cannot decrease entropy in any system. * You cannot hold or trap heat. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. It always flows in one direction. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. This book ignores all of these things. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-08-2019 02:07
30-08-2019 03:14
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes. Thank you! Response moved here: NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.
11-01-2025 04:14
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1622)	From August 26, 2019 The first post by Anders Anders, since you are back again, I invite you to offer an update on what you posted here more than five years ago. Do you still think that oceans are the main reason for global warming? (for example) Do you still want people to please be nice to you when they tell you that you are crazy? Does we really sounds like crazy people, as your newest post, five years later says? At this point you average about six posts per year. You may have arrived just in time to fill in an aching void. Anders wrote: I have this crazy idea that some will see as a provocation, but i hope some will give a positive feedback no matter how they like info. I think that oceans are the main reason for our global warming, 70% of earth surface is oceans and i guess sun in some way heat up like 10-15meter (30-45feet). During daytime sun heat up surface and during night oceans deliver a bit of heat for air. But isnt it correct that oceans are heated by lightwaves that get aborbed by water (and algaes ect), it is not heated very much by the thin air when it need to warm up heavy water. So in my mind it is more likely that our main issue is that oceans are getting heated and heat up air. This heated air could be main cause for bad weather like hurricanes and cyclones ect. So if we could decrease temperature oceans we would - maybe . get better weather conditions with fewer and less dangerous hurricanes ect. and we might delay smelting of ice (probably to late imho). So in my mind real solution is to create powerplants that draw out heat from ocean water and change it to electric power. We already know of water to water pumps that draw out heat, you might know of even better methods. I say if we can change this heat to electric power in a relatively efficient way, then we have a plausible way to create efficient energy while improve the world. And NASA claim they can change ambient heat to electric power efficient, so maybe we already know how to. Im no expert I just guess that even if world get 100% renewable energy - we might still have global warming. The oceans are a huge battery, it contains huge amounts of energy ready to be extracted day and night. We never pay to much attention to this source that are being reloaded like every day. Is it just a crazy idea, or should world do more to draw out energy from oceans? In theory all coastal cities could build plants. My research say that water to water heat pump is around 1kwh input to 5kwh heat output, and best possible way i find to change heat to electric power is 90% efficient - so we might be able to create solutions that will be economic viable. Im sorry if i waste your time...I just do my best so see the world from different angles, and sometimes need a bit of feed back. Please be nice when you tell me im crazy
11-01-2025 04:27
Anders ☆☆☆☆☆ (36)	Did you read everything i wrote? In short terms i say, the oceans heat up waters, and a ground heated heatpump is based on heat from ground, but i said 5 years ago that coastalcities are able to use heatpumps from harbour water, to deliver heat to remote heating systems, and they could deliver heat at 20% of electricityprice. They do this in Oslo, Aalborg, Aarhus and Esbjerg with big succes...if just electricityprices was low...and probably around the world...

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate Is reason for climate change correct?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
I have an idea to correct Global Warming.	19	25-02-2024 21:48
The Best Public Way To End The COVID Pandemic Is Using Climate Change Reason	6	25-04-2023 19:50
The Correct Public Strategy Solutions For The Climate Change Problem	1	03-11-2022 20:09
The real reason that Meghan Markle is not at the Queens funeral is that there are no	0	09-09-2022 13:58
The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way	0	22-07-2021 07:31