My ignorance on full display!
| My ignorance on full display!18-01-2022 18:49 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
I've learned so much on this site and again, thanks guys for sharing all your knowledge. My kid asked me a question the other day, but not sure I answered correctly. "Dad, I know you cannot increase temperature without additional energy. How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black. There is no additional energy. I answered that the additional energy was the amount of energy the black object absorbed, rather than the amount of energy available to both objects. He said that makes sense. Then he called me a racist. Did I answer correctly? Or is there a better SIMPLE way to articulate? For some reason I'm not sure of myself. Last thing I want to do is send him out into the world fighting battles because of his climate sins and defending himself with misinformation. Thanks! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 18-01-2022 19:22 |
| 18-01-2022 19:33 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote: Thanks for being receptive to it! GasGuzzler wrote: You answered correctly. Both objects are absorbing infrared light from the Sun and converting that to thermal energy. The photons are, of course, destroyed. Emissivity (which is also absorbtivity) is greater for the black object (usually). The reason a white object is white is because it reflects more light (to you). The reason a black object is black is because it reflects less light (to you). If you know the temperature of a surface, you can calculate what the emissivity is by comparing it to the ideal black body, an ideally perfect absorber (and emitter). At night, of course, the black object also loses more energy (it is a better emitter too!) so that both objects are the same temperature the next morning. GasGuzzler wrote: Odd. I guess he figures that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is somehow 'racist' now? GasGuzzler wrote: Yes. GasGuzzler wrote: I would say you did. GasGuzzler wrote: His response has nothing to do with what you said. He is pivoting to racism, which is a fallacy. GasGuzzler wrote: Apparently he has already enjoined the various religions of the Democrats. It looks like he WANTS misinformation. Rest assured, it didn't come from you. GasGuzzler wrote: Good luck with your kid. These are fundamentalist style religions. It is rather difficult to extricate someone from them. Don't give up hope though! It has been done. Refer him to this forum. He might learn, just as you did. 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 18-01-2022 19:49 |
| 18-01-2022 19:46 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
Apparently you left ITN speechless... I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing... |
| 18-01-2022 19:50 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
gfm7175 wrote: Nah. Posting buffer issue. 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 |
| 18-01-2022 20:27 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Did I answer correctly? Or is there a better SIMPLE way to articulate? You answered correctly. Two different objects with different surfaces will have different absorptivities. The sun is pelting both with the same power of solar radiation but each object is absorbing different power ratings-worth. The black surface is absorbing more and reflecting less, so it will have higher temperature for that reason. Now, to demonstrate to yourself that you are much smarter than those who simply rely on internet search results, pretend to be a keepit-type of moron and "Google" the temperature of outer space or of deep space. You should find a plethora of sites telling you that space has a temperature. Some will tell you that space "is recognized" as being 2.7 degrees Kelvin (very cold) and some will tell you that it is very, very hot. Regardless, only matter can have temperature, and it is stupid to refer to any point in the vacuum of space as having a temperature. If you were to point this out to any such moron who claims that space has a temperature, he will probably respond as he has been instructed by the people who do his thinking for him, that space is full of "background radiation" that brings matter to "the temperature of space.". It is at this point that you will recall your son's lesson and realize the " temperature of space " gibber-babble for what it is. The physics underlying the different temperatures of different objects sitting in the sun, applies to all matter, always, everywhere. Those two objects with different temperatures in the sun will have different temperatures at any point in deep space. If you were to place the objects at some point in space such that one object has a temperature of 2.7K, the other object will specifically have a different temperature. |
| 18-01-2022 20:46 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
Into the Night wrote:GasGuzzler wrote: Heh! I think you misunderstood. One of his best friends is black. Him, my son, and another are becoming quite the ski bums. They literally spend entire weekends together snowboarding and hurling racist jokes. Anytime I say the word 'black' I'm immediately called out for it. It's all in fun and dimishes all the BS cries of racism in our society today. On Saturday he sent me a text... Him-Dad, Grant pushed me off a cliff. I'm OK. Me-Did you deserve it? Him-NO! It was racially motivated! LMAO!!!! The boy will be just fine. He actively engages in arguments in class. Some teachers encourage it, others try to shut him down after letting another student spew climate change BS. In fact he got sent to the office last week for continuing to talk in one such argument after the teacher said it "was enough". I am proud of him. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 18-01-2022 20:56 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
Into the Night wrote: This part.... What about rate of cooling? Should the two objects theoretically reach equilibrium with their surroundings at the same time? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 18-01-2022 21:04 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
IBdaMann wrote: You read my mind, I was going to ask about that too. Thanks. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 18-01-2022 21:18 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote: Ahhhh, yeah figured something along those lines, but had to make the joke anyway because it appeared on my screen as you just replying to his quote and not adding anything to it. |
| 18-01-2022 21:44 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
gfm7175 wrote:Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote: I was admittedly a bit confused by your comment also. It was fully broken down and answered well. Your computer has a virus and will need the Microsoft vaccine. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 19-01-2022 00:04 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:This part.... Let's bring it all together and put a pretty bow on top. Let's take three different (differently surfaced) objects, ObjectA, ObjectB and ObjectC, out in space somewhere, at their respective different temperatures, TempA, TempB, and TempC ... because physics applies to all matter, always, everywhere. ... and before we begin, we take a moment to recite one of the principal atheo-Christian prayers to inspire us to take our wisdom to the next level: Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If System A is in thermal equilibrium with both System B and System C then System B and System C are themselves in thermal equilibrium. If you'll recall, Into the Night hardly misses an opportunity to point out that this is the prayer to which any definition of temperature must adhere. When we recite our prayer, we are reminded that although Objects A, B and C are all of different temperatures out in space, they are all in thermal equilibrium. with each other. This is why we pray. Then we recall what else Into the Night wrote: Into the Night wrote:If you know the temperature of a surface, you can calculate what the emissivity is by comparing it to the ideal black body, an ideally perfect absorber (and emitter). There are two things to note here. First, the part at the end where he mentions "perfect absorber (and emitter)" is known as Kirchhoff's Law and it states that an object's absorptivity equals its radiativity. This means that to whatever extent a body of matter readily (and efficiently) absorbs thermal radiation, it also necessarily radiates thermally exactly as readily (and efficiently). Any body of matter, anywhere, at any time, radiates equally as it absorbs. So now you can just talk down your nose at people and just say "You're wrong; you're violating Kirchhoff's law" without feeling obligated to explain the above paragraph. The other part in what Into the Night wrote is that Objects A, B and C, each with differing emissivities, fall short to some extent of a perfect black body. That extent is determined by the body's emissivity value, which is something less than 100% (and greater than 0%). * SO NOW LET'S FINALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION * A body's emissivity value tells you how "fast" or "slowly" an object heats up and cools down ... *BUT* ... if a body is slower to heat up and to cool down, it also does not have as far to go. So Objects A and B are at thermal equilibrium while Object A is at a higher temperature than Object B, if they are both moved to a different area of space requiring both to increase their equilibrium temperatures, Object A will have further to go than Object B, but Object A will increase in temperature at a faster rate. How much faster? Exactly faster enough that Object A and Object B arrive at their new thermal equilibrium at the exact same time. Remember, they both started at different temperatures but they were the different temperatures needed to be in thermal equilibrium with each other where they were. The same applies if they are cooling. Note: All of the above was within the context of space, in a vacuum, devoid of considerations of any conduction (or convection). (Terminology Note: all substances have a radiativity and absorptivity that varies per the wavelength of the energy being absorbed and/or radiated. Regardless of the wavelength, absorptivity = radiativity. However, an object/body taken as a whole has one, single emissivity value which represents both the absorptivity and radiativity of the entire body for the entire spectrum of all wavelengths combined. This is important to note because warmizombies and James__ and keepit will not hesitate to speak of the "emissivity of substances" to shift goalposts by suddenly transitioning to radiativity without specifying any wavelengths ... or to attempt to butcher Stefan-Boltzmann by trying to introduce wavelengths. Don't fall for it. Unfortunately, too many people have gravitated to unwittingly using the term "emissivity" to mean "radiativity". This was not the case when I was in school but the repeated conflation over the decades has legitimized that usage ... and then warmizombies use that as their opportunity to shift goalposts. |
| 19-01-2022 01:58 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Into the Night wrote: Yes. 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 |
| 19-01-2022 02:00 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote: In my case, that vaccine is fatal. I run Linux everywhere. I don't use Microsoft anything (except an XBoxX1, I call it the triple-X box). My Nintendo Switch runs unix. 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 |
| 19-01-2022 03:24 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
IBdaMann wrote: It all made sense till we got right here. I think I need you to define "thermal equilibrium" for me. I thought it was equal temperature but now wondering if it is equal thermal energy? Help?! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 19-01-2022 03:50 |
| 19-01-2022 04:06 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
GasGuzzler wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote: Bill Gates is now mandating that all computers have to get the Microsoft vaccine or will be banned from all wall outlets. |
| 19-01-2022 04:16 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
gfm7175 wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote: Yup. I heard that too, and Tesla will be in charge of enforcement. Computers refusing the vax could be quarantined to the local land fill. The new law could take effect as soon as Monday via executive order. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 19-01-2022 04:20 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
GasGuzzler wrote:gfm7175 wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote: I think a bonus point is in order... good job! |
| 19-01-2022 05:38 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:It all made sense till we got right here. Sure. There's no mystery here. Equilibrium: the rate flowing in equals the rate flowing out Thermal Equilibrium: the rate of thermal energy flowing in equals the rate of thermal energy flowing out. When something is in thermal equilibrium, its temperature does not change. This can be modified to read that something is considered to be in thermal equilibrium if its temperature fluctuations/changes are negligible. For example, earth receives an erratic, uneven, fluctuating stream of thermal energy from the sun ... but the erratic, uneven nature is so negligible that it looks the same to us as a firmly steady stream. Ergo, we say the earth is in equilibrium. If you chill/frost a beer mug in the freezer, the mug is not in equilibrium until it cools to the temperature inside the freezer. At that point, its temperature does not change and equilibrium is reached. It remains at that temperature as long as you keep it in the freezer. Then comes the hour that you pull that mug out of the freezer and set it on the counter so you can fill it with beer. The mug is much colder than the surrounding environment. Thermal energy begins pouring in from the warmer surroundings into the colder mug, but don't worry, there will still be room for the beer. The mug's temperature changes (increases) until it reaches ambient temperature if you let it, at which point it will cease changing temperature and will remain in equilibrium. GasGuzzler wrote: I thought it was equal temperature but now wondering if it is equal thermal energy? Help?! They are one and the same. Thermal energy is what gives matter temperature. If you have an object that is 145 degrees F, it has sufficient thermal energy for that amount of matter (mass) to be at 145 degrees. (notice that I used the words "has sufficient thermal energy" as opposed to "has enough thermal energy trapped/contained/held/secured." Nothing can prevent any thermal energy from freely escaping any body of matter according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. |
| 19-01-2022 06:13 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
IBdaMann wrote: Ok, likely I'm making this more difficult than it is. In your example, I had A and B in thermal equilibrium with each other. Was that not the way I was supposed to visulize it? Are A and B in different locations of different temperature? Edited on 19-01-2022 06:14 |
| 19-01-2022 07:14 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:In your example, I had A and B in thermal equilibrium with each other. This is correct. Objects A and B are out there in space together somewhere. Because there is always some thermal radiation, either faint or strong, Objects A and B are exposed to the same non-zero power rating of incident thermal radiation in that area of space *BUT* they have different surfaces (either different colors or different smoothness or some other physical difference) and therefore they have different emissivities and are absorbing that incident thermal energy at different rates. The object that is absorbing less thermal energy (due to its lower emissivity) will change temperature more slowly, both heating and cooling, and will have a lower equilibrium temperature. But just as your frosted beer mug reaches thermal equilibrium with the inside of the freezer, Objects A and B will seek thermal equilibrium with that patch of space and its level of thermal radiation. This means that both Objects A and B will change temperature until the amount of thermal radiation each is emitting is the same as the amount of thermal radiation that it is absorbing ... and its temperature is no longer changing. Key Term: Whatever an object's temperature is at the point of equilibrium in a given environment is the equilibrium temperature for that object in that environment. This is why Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect are not possible. They both claim that Earth's average global temperature is increasing while the environment isn't changing (i.e. the sun isn't getting hotter) so Earth cannot somehow have a higher equilibrium temperature and still be in equilibrium. So Objects A and B are out there in a patch of space, absorbing at different rates from each other and arriving at different equilibrium temperatures, exactly what is needed for them to be in thermal equilibrium with each other. Let's pray one more time. Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If Object A and Object B are each in thermal equilibrium in a common patch of space, both Object A and Object B are therefore in thermal equilibrium with each other, even if they have different temperatures. GasGuzzler wrote:Are A and B in different locations of different temperature? It is incorrect to refer to a location of space as having a temperature. Only matter can have temperature. In my example, both Object A and Object B are in a common area of space whereby they are both receiving the same incident thermal radiation. That thermal radiation is therefore absorbed by each at differing rates depending on each one's individual emissivity ... *OR* ... the level of incident thermal radiation is too low and Object A and B both cool, emitting thermal energy until reaching equilibrium temperature. |
| 19-01-2022 18:15 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
All makes perfect sense now. A good night of sleep goes a long ways! For some dumb reason I had an image of identical objects A and B. I only confused myself. You were very clear. Thanks again! |
| 19-01-2022 18:31 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:All makes perfect sense now. A good night of sleep goes a long ways! Wait, I haven't finished. I haven't covered the racism and the victimization. Privileged white bodies will not do any work for even a perfect black body that is hot in its environment. White bodies are always so cold in their dealings.   |
| 19-01-2022 18:38 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
IBdaMann wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:All makes perfect sense now. A good night of sleep goes a long ways! WTH??!! I am nearly certain It was YOU that said there's no such thing as a perfect black body. Now I'm confused again. Dammit. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 19-01-2022 18:42 |
| 19-01-2022 22:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:IBdaMann wrote: First, temperature is not total thermal energy. It is average thermal energy. Thermal equilibrium is simply where there is no heat. No more thermal energy is flowing into or out of an object. As long as there is a difference of thermal energy between two objects, and some kind of coupling between the two objects (in this case the Sun at the distance from Earth and one of the two cars) there is heat. In other words, light is being absorbed by the car and being converted to thermal energy. At some point, the car will simply stop absorbing light and converting it to thermal energy. Energy naturally dissipates across a given system. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy is the randomness of a system, in this case, energy. At the same time, of course, the car also emits light, according the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and is conducting thermal to the outside by conductive heat. When heat from a source and heat going to a sink (leaving the object) is the same, then effectively there is no further heat. The object will not get any warmer or cooler. After the Sun goes down, of course, things change. Now the car has more energy then the surroundings. That energy will dissipate into those surroundings until again, there is no more heat. 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. This simply means that energy can never be concentrated in a given system. It always dissipates (entropy is increasing) or nothing at all is happening (equilibrium, entropy stays the same). Heat can occur by conduction, convection, or radiance. There is a law in physics for each of these cases. They are all supported by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thus, a colder gas can never heat a warmer surface. You can't do it by conduction, or by convection, or by radiance. 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 |
| 19-01-2022 22:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote: Excellent! IBD can often make things very clear. 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 |
| 19-01-2022 22:33 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
Into the Night wrote: Sorry guys, just can't take things at face value. I have to completely understand! Easy to understand how the black object loses more energy at night, it has more to give up. However, saying the black object is a better emitter seems a bit odd. How can color have any effect when there is no light? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 20-01-2022 00:49 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Into the Night wrote: No problem. Asking questions is how you learn! GasGuzzler wrote: Good. GasGuzzler wrote: There is light. All objects convert thermal energy to light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4 where, 'r' is radiance per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity', or how well the surface can absorb and emit light, and 't' is temperature in deg K. It's infrared light, so you can't see it, but it is light. Remember that the frequencies of light that we can see is very narrow. To measure the emissivity of a surface, you first have to accurately know its temperature. That is compared to an ideal emitter at the same temperature. This constant is expressed as a percentage of an ideal emitter (1 = 100%). 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 20-01-2022 00:52 |
| 20-01-2022 16:36 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Sorry guys, just can't take things at face value. I have to completely understand! That's the science perspective in a nutshell. You are expected to doubt, question, scrutinize ... and then repeat. Religion, on the other hand, requires you to simply believe first, without question, and then to accept everything on faith from the self-ordained authorities. Well done. GasGuzzler wrote:However, saying the black object is a better emitter seems a bit odd. How can color have any effect when there is no light? There is no visible light, i.e there is no light in the visible spectrum. The thermal radiation is essentially all in the infrared. Think Terminator. Ergo, the black object has a higher emissivity and is therefore a more effective/efficient radiator (and absorber) of electromagnetic energy, and that includes infrared electromagnetic. Just remember, all matter, always, everywhere ... is radiating thermally. |
| 20-01-2022 16:49 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:WTH??!! I am nearly certain It was YOU that said there's no such thing as a perfect black body. Now I'm confused again. Dammit. Racists such as yourself insist that only white bodies are perfect, by their own standards of course, and that there are no perfect black bodies anywhere in nature. |
| 20-01-2022 17:06 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
GasGuzzler wrote:However, saying the black object is a better emitter seems a bit odd. How can color have any effect when there is no light? IBdaMann wrote: Thanks guys. Yes, all light, not visible visible light was the missing link here for me. Thinking Terminator... Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Attached image: 
Edited on 20-01-2022 17:08 |
| 20-01-2022 17:14 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
IBdaMann wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:WTH??!! I am nearly certain It was YOU that said there's no such thing as a perfect black body. Now I'm confused again. Dammit. What a ridiculous statement! If white bodies were perfect, then why such a demand for tanning beds?!! Hmmm? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 21-01-2022 00:52 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
GasGuzzler wrote:If white bodies were perfect, then why such a demand for tanning beds?!! They exist to tan the leather of the black bodies.  White bodies wouldn't be white bodies anymore if they were tanned. This gets into tanbody science. If my project works out, I'll be able to have a life without Christians tanning my leather for Ivanka. Did you see how it almost didn't happen? |
| 24-01-2022 08:12 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...Object A is at a higher temperature than Object B, ... So Object A and Object B have different emissivity's, and therefore they reach a different temperature. This simple example exposes the "you cannot have a planet heat up without adding additional energy!" argument to rest. Example: A shiny polished steel ball in space, with a nitrogen gas atmosphere has oxygen trapped within it's core. An eruption leads to oxygen being released into the atmosphere, and the planet starts to rust. Red rust has a higher emissivity and the ball starts to absorb more energy from the radiance hitting it. There was no change in the energy reaching the planet, nothing was added to or removed from the planet, yet the temperature changes. AGW argues a change is occurring due to changes in the part of the planet the radiance of the sun reaches. You might not agree, but to say that a change in temperature for a planet is impossible simply due to a change in the arrangement of it's matter is simply wrong. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN |
| 24-01-2022 08:38 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:So Object A and Object B have different emissivity's, and therefore they reach a different temperature. It was already at rest. No body of matter can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional thermal energy. I see you still haven't bothered to learn any science. What a surprise. tmiddles wrote:Example: A shiny polished steel ball in space, ... blah, blah, blah You try to fool people with your example of emissivity being definitively changed by a chemical reaction. All of this is a distraction, as usual. Nothing you are saying supports your contention that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. Once again you make the argument of omniscience that you somehow know the earth's emissivity is changing. When asked to explain how a rational adult can verify what you are claiming, you blame Into the Night and I for your inability to provide any answers. Then, when you think everyone has forgotten your deliberate barrage of disinformation, you return once again to your stupid "steel ball in space" scenario as if someone has somehow claimed that iron/steel cannot rust. tmiddles wrote:AGW argues a change is occurring due to changes in the part of the planet the radiance of the sun reaches. Yes, there is no shortage of bonehead warmizombies who don't realize that the atmosphere is part of the planet. You would be one of them. You can't subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. the body of matter. tmiddles wrote: You might not agree, but to say that a change in temperature for a planet is impossible simply due to a change in the arrangement of it's matter is simply wrong. You might agree that I never said this ... or better yet, that you would not be able to produce any quote of mine that says this. So you're still omniscient, I see. Why did you never warn Xadoman? You still haven't made it out of the starting gate. Attached image:  |
| 24-01-2022 08:43 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote: So is the rusty ball warmer or not? the whole unit of it of course Didn't see that you made an argument. And the "mistake" that you always make is pretending that there is a fixed quantity of energy. That is false. There is a rate of energy continually flowing from the sun to everything it's radiance hits. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 24-01-2022 08:44 |
| 24-01-2022 09:29 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:So is the rusty ball warmer or not? the whole unit of it of course I would imagine so. I would imagine that given the scenario of two balls in space, a steel ball with presumably lower emissivity than a rusty steel ball (or any other type of ball for that matter) that is of a higher emissivity, given equivalent power ratings of the same EM, it would stand to reason that the ball with the higher emissivity will have a higher temperature. tmiddles wrote:And the "mistake" that you always make is pretending that there is a fixed quantity of energy. That is false. Incorrect. Your eternal error is that you try to violate the first law of thermodynamics and create energy out of nothing. If you do not specify a source of additional energy, no additional energy can be assumed, per the law of conservation of energy. As it stands, you never specify any additional energy. You point to substances and atmospheres and claim that they somehow violate thermodynamics. The problem is on your end. tmiddles wrote: There is a rate of energy continually flowing from the sun to everything it's radiance hits. Correct. The sun and its energy were already there before any greenhouse gas was added to the earth's atmosphere. Ergo, when you point to greenhouse gas as causing the increase in temperature and not to any ADDITIONAL thermal energy, well, then you're talking MAGICK! |
| 24-01-2022 09:43 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:So is the rusty ball warmer or not? the whole unit of it of course And do you also acknowledge that a steel ball could become a rusty ball (the same ball) over time and have it's temperature increase? Without adding or removing any matter and without adding any new source of energy. So an object can get hotter without changing it's distance from the sun or adding or removing anything. Just from a rearrangement of it's surface. Of course there is a constant flow of new energy to objects that the suns radiance reaches. So I say a new "source" of energy, and not new energy. The radiance of the sun is all new all the time. |
| 24-01-2022 10:49 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I understand your logic Tmiddles.The laws of thermodynamics make no mention of a changing environment.I still do not think the tiny bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere can make a big deal at all.No human or machine can calculate the effect in an ever changing dynamic world.If the whole planets land surface was bitumised you would get a different set of temperature readings just before the oxygen ran out but this would not be easy to do and we now have more trees than in 1970.I am a big fan of lets keep going and deal with problems if they arise.The sea level rise is still getting a ride.Just move or build a wall and it still has not happened where I live.Can you visit the Maldives yes or no regardless of covid |
| 24-01-2022 11:02 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
duncan61 wrote:...The laws of thermodynamics make no mention of a changing environment.... The "changing environment" isn't something that is creating energy though right? Like metal doesn't get super hot when it rusts. (that's not a exothermic reaction that causes the ball to be hotter). So we have here a clear example of where an object at a fixed distance from the sun, without getting any more radiance from the sun than it would have otherwise, gets hotter because of a change in the composition of it's surface. To help you out Duncan this is the big goof up by many on this board: We do not have a fixed quantity of energy from the sun, we have a rate of energy. We get new and more energy constantly. Trying to say is not IBdaMann wrote:...any ADDITIONAL thermal energy, well, then you're talking MAGICK!is to fundamentally misunderstand this. We get a constant flow of Energy from the sun, so does Venus, so does the moon. We all have wildly different surface temperatures because the composition of the surface of each planet is different. That the surface of Earth can be altered is a given. |
| 24-01-2022 12:13 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Could you be clear where you stand on the theory that we will all burn up soon.We have just had mid summer and 10 days went over 40.C.death toll ermm zero.The Pilbara enjoyed days over 55.C still no one dead. |
Join the debate My ignorance on full display!:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Miller Lite has now gone full Burka, praise Allah | 0 | 17-05-2023 19:13 |
| Prince Andrew the pedophile will be in full shit brit military uniform at the witches funeral | 0 | 14-09-2022 03:25 |
| Elon Musk going full retard | 0 | 24-07-2022 04:05 |
| The Epic Way To End The NCOV Pandemic is Educate Reveal Full Virus Working Mechanism To The People | 2 | 24-06-2021 20:02 |
| Truth About Game Of Life, The Difference Between Human Part Ascension vs Full Nirvana Evolution | 1 | 22-01-2021 11:09 |