Remember me
▼ Content

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<12
29-08-2019 22:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21600)
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
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21600)
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
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21600)
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
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21600)
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
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(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.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Is reason for climate change correct?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
I have an idea to correct Global Warming.1925-02-2024 21:48
The Best Public Way To End The COVID Pandemic Is Using Climate Change Reason625-04-2023 19:50
The Correct Public Strategy Solutions For The Climate Change Problem103-11-2022 20:09
The real reason that Meghan Markle is not at the Queens funeral is that there are no009-09-2022 13:58
The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way022-07-2021 07:31
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact