NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference. > Page 7

Page 7 of 16

21-06-2020 12:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:I will be ignoring everything that is not about thermal energy. You are declaring, in a thread that is entitled "NET THERMAL RADIATION" that you will be ignoring radiance, even when it's discussed as resulting in thermal energy, because you don't consider it relevant to thermal energy. So that is that. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:...when the radiance from the walls of the room you are in reaches your skin it is absorbed and converted to thermal energy. ...I asked you if you had a point about temperature,... Radiance producing Thermal Energy and Temperature is a measure of the present Thermal Energy. But why can't you just answer that simple question about radiance, in a thread devoted to radiance? IBdaMann wrote:...quoting me (without including the context of the discussion) ...you have absolutely no intention of discussing it. Discuss what? What did I leave out you want included? IBdaMann wrote:Are you saying that the sun can increase the temperature over and above what the temperature would be with only the sun? Close. But that's a discussion here: link The Sun's radiance causes thermal energy though so I guess you can't think about it at all? It is a radiance answer. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The cooler atmosphere can result in more of that thermal energy being present at ground level. Nope. Violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Nope and a blanket doesn't violate the 2nd LTD either. Your 2nd LTD argument is debunked here: IBD's misunderstanding of the 2nd LTD debunked That thread was abandoned by you and you left my last post unresponded to Feb 27th. IBdaMann wrote:...daytime side of the moon ...exceeds 240F (120C). ...dogma that requires him to believe atmospheres make a planet's surface specifically warmer ... no daytime temperature anywhere on earth ever gets anywhere close to... The moon is a fantastic reference. The daytime side nearly reaches a temp equivalent to the full Solar Insolation (the amount of radiance hitting the surface) for it's emissivity of ~0.9. Of course we are talking about the mean temperature of Earth. The atmosphere diffuses the thermal energy from the Sun so that the day time is cooler and the night time warmer. Interestingly this phenomenon is far more extreme on VENUS where the difference between day and night temps is just a few degrees and where the temperature exceeds the Solar Insolation entirely!! WOW! That's right, midnight on Venus is HOTTER than high noon would be on planet with no atmosphere the same distance from the sun. Science is amazing. "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 21-06-2020 13:27
22-06-2020 01:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...15a...15b...20q1...20q2...20g...10f...paradox V...20a2...29...15a...15b...20g...20q1...20q2...20a2...20a1...7...15b...25g...20a5...20a1...20g...20o...25g...32... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Spamming. 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
22-06-2020 16:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tgoebbles wrote: But why can't you just answer that simple question about radiance, in a thread devoted to radiance? But why can't you just focus on thermal energy and just demonstrate it flowing from cooler to warmer? Oh, that's right, you realize that you are WRONG! and you don't want to face the realization that your entire WACKY religious faith is WRONG! ... so instead of moving forward and arriving at the natural conclusion that you are WRONG! about so many things, you pull back stubborn mule and refuse to budge. So, why should any rational adult believe that WACKY religion of yours? So they can become groveling tools for BLM? So they can HATE their fellow man and seek to dismantle the best society on the planet? It's strange when you think about it that all of those violations of physics in which you place your unquestioning faith are merely religious dogma that serves to justify and rationalize your destruction of society and your pathetic groveling to Marxist groups. tgoebbles wrote: The Sun's radiance causes thermal energy though so I guess you can't think about it at all? It is a radiance answer. Correct. You are welcome to discuss how the hotter sun's thermal energy flows to the cooler earth. No mention of radiance is required; I don't see why you deny this. Do you somehow deny that occurs? tgoebbles wrote: Nope and a blanket doesn't violate the 2nd LTD either. You are WRONG! Of course no blanket violates thermodynamics. Nothing violates thermodynamics. This is exactly why your arguments must adhere to thermodynamics, i.e. nothing can violate thermodynamics. Clearly one of the pillars of your personal religious faith is that the cooler atmosphere can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by increasing the temperature of the warmer solid surface. Shall we discuss any more physics violations that your faith requires? tgoebbles wrote: Your 2nd LTD argument is debunked here: You sure like to claim that you have "debunked" things. Does that work for you? Do you actually convince yourself? Surely you realize that merely claiming that you have "debunked" something only serves to delude yourself into believing that the flaw in your argument is somehow true, ... and that you still haven't actually debunked anything whatsoever. tgoebbles wrote: The moon is a fantastic reference. The daytime side nearly reaches a temp equivalent to the full Solar Insolation (the amount of radiance hitting the surface) for it's emissivity of ~0.9. You are back to being omniscient! Well done. Could you be more precise? Is the moon's emissivity 0.89035248648845566 or 0.89035248648845567? tgoebbles wrote: Interestingly this phenomenon is far more extreme on VENUS where the difference between day and night temps is just a few degrees and where the temperature exceeds the Solar Insolation entirely!! WOW! Awesome! While your omniscience is in full swing, ... what is this latest convolution of yours supposed to mean? How does a temperature exceed a Power? How does that work? As it stands, it doesn't make any sense but I notice the insistence that you know stuff about Venus that you don't. I assume that Venus holds a special sacred place in your faith, on the pedestal of omniscience. Hey, do you also know when stocks will go up and when they will go down? tgoebbles wrote:That's right, midnight on Venus is HOTTER than high noon would be on planet with no atmosphere the same distance from the sun. Omniscience is amazing. tgoebbles wrote:Science is amazing. Science denial is amazing. Have you run this by your BLM masters? You had better make sure they approve of what you're preaching. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
23-06-2020 11:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: when the radiance from the walls of the room you are in reaches your skin it is absorbed and converted to thermal energy. So, why should any rational adult believe that WACKY religion of yours? That would be a wacky religion, "Wall Radiance Society" maybe? Of course it's simply a really basic principle of thermal radiance we've had since Provost (in my sig) that radiance is absorbed from cooler objects by warmer ones. You are dodging it because your arguments to the contrary are BS. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:The cooler atmosphere can result in more of that thermal energy being present at ground level. Nope. Violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Nope and a blanket doesn't violate the 2nd LTD either. Of course no blanket violates thermodynamics. Doesn't a blanket result in more thermal energy being present near our skin? What's the difference? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Your 2nd LTD argument is debunked here: IBD's misunderstanding of the 2nd LTD debunked You sure like to claim that you have "debunked" things. I don't play the RQAA game and when I've actually responded to something and you've abandoned the debate I link to it so that you have the opportunity to respond now. It's simply my way of respecting the board and trying to keep things a little organized. IBdaMann wrote: Is the moon's emissivity 0.89035248648845566 or 0.89035248648845567? For our purposes we don't need to know to 16 decimal places. Our purpose is to note that the moon is consistent with our theory on Solar Insolation generating a temperature with a given emissivity. We could even use the temperature to calculate the emissivity, why not. I know you love to pretend "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" while really you and ITN are just playing a game of pretending that becuase nothing can be know EXACTLY you can dismiss everything as being meaningless numbers. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...VENUS ...exceeds the Solar Insolation ... How does a temperature exceed a Power? I'll explain: A--- A surface area with a given temperature will emit a given radiance as per Stefan Boltzmann. B--- The radiance from the Sun that hits a surface is based on it's distance from the Sun C--- If a surface where to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. D--- Midnight on Venus (as in where the Sun Don't Shine) has a higher ground level temp, ~470C, it emits more radiance, than the maximum radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun (high noon), 2649 W/m², which corresponds to ~192C. link link "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 23-06-2020 11:55
23-06-2020 20:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: That would be a wacky religion, "Wall Radiance Society" maybe? Of course it's simply a really basic principle of thermal radiance we've had since Provost (in my sig) that radiance is absorbed from cooler objects by warmer ones. Nope. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics again. Mantras 20a2...20q1...20q2...20g... tmiddles wrote: You are dodging it because your arguments to the contrary are BS. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not BS. Quantum mechanics is not BS. They are theories of science you are simply ignoring. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:The cooler atmosphere can result in more of that thermal energy being present at ground level. Nope. Violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Nope and a blanket doesn't violate the 2nd LTD either. Of course no blanket violates thermodynamics. Doesn't a blanket result in more thermal energy being present near our skin? What's the difference? A blanket does not result in more thermal energy. You cannot create thermal energy with a blanket. Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make it warmer. There is no blanket in the atmosphere. Mantra 20a1...20a2...20b5... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Your 2nd LTD argument is debunked here: IBD's misunderstanding of the 2nd LTD debunked You sure like to claim that you have "debunked" things. I don't play the RQAA game You play it all the time, liar. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: and when I've actually responded to something You haven't responded. You just continue to pivot to old arguments, preaching, and spamming across threads. Mantras 15a...15b...7... tmiddles wrote: and you've abandoned the debate No, that's you. Inversion fallacy. Mantra 17. There is no debate. Mantra 10h. tmiddles wrote: I link to it Holy links are not a proof. Spamming is not a proof. Mantras 4a...15a...15b... tmiddles wrote: so that you have the opportunity to respond now. RQAA. Mantra 29. tmiddles wrote: It's simply my way of respecting the board and trying to keep things a little organized. Spamming is not respecting the board. Mantras 6. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Is the moon's emissivity 0.89035248648845566 or 0.89035248648845567? For our purposes we don't need to know to 16 decimal places. Our purpose is to note that the moon is consistent with our theory on Solar Insolation generating a temperature with a given emissivity. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. tmiddles wrote: We could even use the temperature to calculate the emissivity, why not. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I know you love to pretend "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" Never said any such thing. Neither has IBdaMann nor anyone else but you. You're a liar. Mantra 30. tmiddles wrote: while really you and ITN are just playing a game of pretending that The laws of thermodynamics is no game. Mathematics is no game. You are simply ignoring them. Mantra 30...29... tmiddles wrote: becuase nothing can be know EXACTLY RQAA. Mantras 10g...29... tmiddles wrote: you can dismiss everything as being meaningless numbers. I can dismiss any temperature of any planet as meaningless numbers. I can dismiss any emissivity of any planet as meaningless numbers. You are ignoring mathematics again. Mantras 25g...25c...10g... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...VENUS ...exceeds the Solar Insolation ... How does a temperature exceed a Power? I'll explain: A--- A surface area with a given temperature will emit a given radiance as per Stefan Boltzmann. B--- The radiance from the Sun that hits a surface is based on it's distance from the Sun C--- If a surface where to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. Nope. Not all light is absorbed. Light is not thermal energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantras 20g...20q1...20q2...20a1... tmiddles wrote: D--- Midnight on Venus (as in where the Sun Don't Shine) has a higher ground level temp, ~470C, it emits more radiance, than the maximum radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun (high noon), 2649 W/m², which corresponds to ~192C. ...deleted Holy Link... The temperature of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. You are making up numbers again. Mantras 25g...20g...25e...20b2...20w3... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. False authorities. 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

24-06-2020 11:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...it's simply a really basic principle [that the radiance from the wall is absorbed by your skin,]radiance is absorbed from cooler objects by warmer ones. Nope. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics again. So your answer was: link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this: What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin? Nothing. What does that even mean? It ceases to exist? I was operating on the assumption radiance can only do the following when it encounters matter: 1- Reflect 2- Absorb 3- Transmit 4- A combination of the above So what is "Nothing"? RQAA This "nothing" has an explanation in quantum mechanics? A 5th option I didn't know about for the above list? Let me guess: RQAA right? Into the Night wrote:Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make it warmer. If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? The one with the blanket! You see that body will have more thermal energy, because of the blanket. Into the Night wrote:The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. Does that mean you believe we know nothing about the emissivity of the moon? Surely you'd agree we know it's not more than 1.0 (since that's impossible) how about that it's greater that 0.5? What do you mean when you say "known" because it seems like it always reads "known to an infinite degree of precision" just as IBD's post reveals. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I know you love to pretend "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" Never said any such thing. Of course not I'm accusing you of having that agenda. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...VENUS ...exceeds the Solar Insolation ...I'll explain: A--- A surface area with a given temperature will emit a given radiance as per Stefan Boltzmann. B--- The radiance from the Sun that hits a surface is based on it's distance from the Sun C--- If a surface where to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. Nope. Not all light is absorbed. Light is not thermal energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. True the emissivity is never 1.0 and some light is reflected. But that doesn't change the explanation at all. Thermal energy produces light. Where do you see energy being created out of nothing? Into the Night wrote: The temperature of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. I did not need the emissivity. I used the full Solar Insolation. You have already acknowledged the high temperatures of Venus so we both agree we know that much don't we. "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 24-06-2020 11:50
24-06-2020 18:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...it's simply a really basic principle [that the radiance from the wall is absorbed by your skin,]radiance is absorbed from cooler objects by warmer ones. Nope. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics again. So your answer was: link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this: What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin? Nothing. What does that even mean? It ceases to exist? I was operating on the assumption radiance can only do the following when it encounters matter: 1- Reflect 2- Absorb 3- Transmit 4- A combination of the above So what is "Nothing"? RQAA This "nothing" has an explanation in quantum mechanics? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: A 5th option I didn't know about for the above list? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Let me guess: RQAA right? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make it warmer. If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? The one with the blanket! You see that body will have more thermal energy, because of the blanket. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. There is no sequence. Blankets do not create energy. They do not reduce entropy. There is no blanket in the atmosphere or around Earth. Earth does not generate it's own energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. Does that mean you believe we know nothing about the emissivity of the moon? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Surely you'd agree we know it's not more than 1.0 (since that's impossible) how about that it's greater that 0.5? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: What do you mean when you say "known" because it seems like it always reads "known to an infinite degree of precision" just as IBD's post reveals. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I know you love to pretend "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" Never said any such thing. Of course not I'm accusing you of having that agenda. I do not have that agenda either and never did, liar. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...VENUS ...exceeds the Solar Insolation ...I'll explain: A--- A surface area with a given temperature will emit a given radiance as per Stefan Boltzmann. B--- The radiance from the Sun that hits a surface is based on it's distance from the Sun C--- If a surface where to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. Nope. Not all light is absorbed. Light is not thermal energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. True the emissivity is never 1.0 and some light is reflected. But that doesn't change the explanation at all. Thermal energy produces light. Where do you see energy being created out of nothing? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The temperature of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. I did not need the emissivity. Yes you do. Mantra 20b2. tmiddles wrote: I used the full Solar Insolation. Not valid. Mantra 20b2...20q1...20q2...25g... tmiddles wrote: You have already acknowledged the high temperatures of Venus so we both agree we know that much don't we. RQAA. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Spamming. 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
25-06-2020 04:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make it warmer. If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? The one with the blanket! You see that body will have more thermal energy, because of the blanket. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. There is no sequence. Blankets do not create energy. They do not reduce entropy. There is no blanket in the atmosphere or around Earth. Earth does not generate it's own energy out of nothing. So you're saying the dead bodies cool at the same rate and I'm wrong with my example? Or are you saying my example is not similar to the atmosphere on a planet? Dead bodies don't generate energy either.
25-06-2020 07:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make it warmer. If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? The one with the blanket! You see that body will have more thermal energy, because of the blanket. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. There is no sequence. Blankets do not create energy. They do not reduce entropy. There is no blanket in the atmosphere or around Earth. Earth does not generate it's own energy out of nothing. So you're saying the dead bodies cool at the same rate and I'm wrong with my example? RQAA tmiddles wrote: Or are you saying my example is not similar to the atmosphere on a planet? RQAA tmiddles wrote: Dead bodies don't generate energy either. I already said that. 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
25-06-2020 11:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you're saying the dead bodies cool at the same rate and I'm wrong with my example? RQAA Another nice simple proof that RQAA is a fraud. That was the first exchange we've ever had on two dead bodies, one covered with a blanket, and you did not answer the question the one time I asked.
25-06-2020 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you're saying the dead bodies cool at the same rate and I'm wrong with my example? RQAA Another nice simple proof that RQAA is a fraud. No, you just keep asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over even though they've been answered. tmiddles wrote: That was the first exchange we've ever had on two dead bodies, one covered with a blanket, and you did not answer the question the one time I asked. Lie. Semantics fallacy. RQAA. 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 25-06-2020 20:57
25-06-2020 21:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...you just keep asking the same questions.... BS. You are still dodging this one. Two bodies, one with a blanket, which one is warmer hours later? RQAA 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
25-06-2020 21:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...you just keep asking the same questions.... BS. You are still dodging this one. Two bodies, one with a blanket, which one is warmer hours later?
25-06-2020 21:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...you just keep asking the same questions.... BS. You are still dodging this one. Two bodies, one with a blanket, which one is warmer hours later? RQAA 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
25-06-2020 21:59
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...you just keep asking the same questions.... BS. You are still dodging this one. Two bodies, one with a blanket, which one is warmer hours later? Looks as if you and ITN are on Step 8 of TMIDDLES SEQUENCE C. I have made a slight edit to the wording of the sequence, of which this should be the final version: TMIDDLES SEQUENCE C: Step 1: tmiddles asks someone a question about something. Step 2: His interlocutor directly answers his question. Step 3: tmiddles makes a bogus assignment of his interlocutor's position. Step 4: His interlocutor directly calls him out on said bogus position assignment. Step 5: tmiddles whines (falsely) about his interlocutor never completing Step 2, then reverts back to Step 1. Step 6: His interlocutor responds with "RQAA", as Step 2 has already been completed. Step 7: tmiddles whines about "RQAA", whines that his interlocutor is "running away" from him, then repeats Step 5. Step 8: Keep repeating Step 6 & Step 7 until someone "breaks the loop".

25-06-2020 23:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tgoebbles wrote: I was operating on the assumption radiance can only do the following when it encounters matter: 1- Reflect 2- Absorb 3- Transmit 4- A combination of the above Why operate on that assumption? Are you claiming to know the true nature of photons and how they behave in the quantum world? Have you ever personally studied an actual photon's behavior? On the one hand, you jump at the chance to mock me for claiming that there are many possibilities for any given photon's behavior as long as it adhere's to the laws of thermodynamics ... as though you are an expert with personal experience ... in fact, almost as though you have a knee-jerk reflex to tell me that I am WRONG! without actually thinking anything through. Then on the other hand, you ask stupid questions about radiance from the perspective of a true scientifically illiterate who thinks he's a genius. The answer to your question is that photons cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics and that thermal energy cannot flow from cooler to warmer ... and that tells you that photons you somehow conclude are necessarily absorbed ... necessarily aren't. At this realization, you pout like a baby, throw a temper tantrum and piss on yourself. Then you ask more stupid questions about radiance while strictly ignoring thermal energy ... and wonder why others grow tired of your cognitive malpractice. tgoebbles wrote: If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? When a dead body is covered in a blanket, when does its temperature increase? Let's say for the sake of argument that plenty of greenhouse gas of ambient temperature is applied/sprayed to the body and to the blanket. How long will it take for the cadaver's temperature to increase 1degC? Remember, both the cadaver and the blanket are drenched in greenhouse gas. As long as you are asking really stupid questions, if two people are murdered at the same time and one body is left to rot in the midday Death Valley sun (106degF) while the other body is thrown into a vat of liquid nitrogen, which body is warmer hours later? Let's add that the vat of liquid nitrogen also contains solid chunks of greenhouse gas (solid CO2) to trap all the stored retained heat and to reradiate the cadaver's radiance back towards the cadaver and to prevent its escape out of the vat. NOW which body is warmer hours later? tgoebbles wrote: Does that mean you believe we know nothing about the emissivity of the moon? Yes, moron, you do not know the value of the moon's emissivity. There is no word play you can leverage that results in you somehow knowing what it is. It might very well be 0.1, it might be 0.9, it might be something else entirely ... you don't know. Asserting that you know boundary values does not equate to knowing what it is. So now that we have that cleared up ... what is your point? tgoebbles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I know you love to pretend "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" Never said any such thing. Of course not I'm accusing you of having that agenda. Of course the accusation is meaningless coming from you. You are the one who is arguing that absolutely nothing can be known. Whenever you are given examples of things that can be known, you insist that they cannot be known due to inherent uncertainty. You own the argument "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN." I officially disagree with you and I cite all my previous examples. You are WRONG! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
26-06-2020 12:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Step 2: [ITN] directly answers his question. The question/claim: "If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? The one with the blanket! You see that body will have more thermal energy, because of the blanket." The response: "You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. There is no sequence. Blankets do not create energy. They do not reduce entropy. There is no blanket in the atmosphere or around Earth. Earth does not generate it's own energy out of nothing" and then "RQAA" Seem like a direct answer to you GFM? What's your answer? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I was operating on the assumption...Reflect...Absorb...Transmit... Why operate on that assumption?...many possibilities ...that tells you that photons you somehow conclude are necessarily absorbed ... necessarily aren't. So you are saying you don't know but it's NOT absorbed? That's an answer. Do we finally have this one completed? Question: What happens to the radiance from the walls of the cooler room you are in when it reaches your skin? IBD's Answer: It is not absorbed. I got that right? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? When a dead body is covered in a blanket, when does its temperature increase? It doesn't, it's cooling the whole time. While both bodies cool the body covered with the blanket will be warmer than the body not covered by a blanket as the hours go by. It will get very near the ambient temperature after the body without a blanket does. IBdaMann wrote:...greenhouse gas of ambient temperature is applied/sprayed to the body and to the blanket. How long will it take for the cadaver's temperature to increase 1degC? It won't increase! See above. ALL of the thermal energy that caused it to exceed the ambient temperature was due to metabolic activity and they are now dead. So they will only cool. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Does that mean you believe we know nothing about the emissivity of the moon? ...do not know the value of the moon's emissivity. What happened to "to within a useful margin of error" ? IBdaMann wrote:.you do not know ..It might very well be 0.1, it might be 0.9, it might be something else entirely ... Again the game playing of pretending that I personally need to do the work or we can't talk about it. As you know we've been to the moon several times. But really the question is not about the emissivity of the moon it's about what ITN means when he claims humanity "does not know" something. He has chosen to say that a lot but never clear up what he means by it. IBdaMann wrote:Whenever you are given examples of things that can be known, you insist that they cannot be known due to inherent uncertainty. I'm simply pointing out that we never know exactly/perfectly. There is a margin of error. The flip side is that we rarely don't know at all. It might be a huge margin of error but it'll be quantifiable. "We don't know" is said far too often and is far too sloppy on this board. "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 26-06-2020 13:38
26-06-2020 20:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tgoebbles wrote: So you are saying you don't know but it's NOT absorbed? That's an answer. The thermal energy cannot violate thermodynamics just to somehow make your misunderstanding of photon behavior become reality. Any photons that you claim would violate thermodynamics by being absorbed are not absorbed and thermodynamics retains its integrity. I don't care how absurd that appears to you due to its implication that things in the quantum world don't behave as things behave in the macro world. So let's press the issue. What makes you so sure that no photons have ever performed a back-flip? Other than your impression that it sounds absurd, what makes you believe that you somehow know that it has never happened? tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? When a dead body is covered in a blanket, when does its temperature increase? It doesn't, it's cooling the whole time. Then forget about the entire rock. When does the rock's surface temperature increase, i.e. where it touches the atmosphere? Remember it was sprayed with lots of greenhouse gas. Is that when the rock's surface temperature starts to increase? tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Does that mean you believe we know nothing about the emissivity of the moon? ...do not know the value of the moon's emissivity. What happened to "to within a useful margin of error" ? Always assume that it is there should I happent o tgoebbles wrote: As you know we've been to the moon several times. As you know we've been to the earth several times. We don't know the emissivity of either to any usable margin of error. tgoebbles wrote: But really the question is not about the emissivity of the moon it's about what ITN means when he claims humanity "does not know" something. He has chosen to say that a lot but never clear up what he means by it. Nope. You are still the one who is claiming Global Warming. You are the one who is on tap to make your case. Otherwise no one is required to prove your position false and it looks like Into the Night is deflecting your attempt to shift your burden of proof onto him. I recommend you just get back to making your case for Global Warming. tgoebbles wrote: I'm simply pointing out that we never know exactly/perfectly. When I am at the blackjack table I know exactly/perfectly that I have a nine of diamonds and a three of hearts. I know exactly/perfectly that the official metre in Paris is exactly one meter. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
26-06-2020 23:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Step 2: [ITN] directly answers his question. The question/claim: "If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? The one with the blanket! You see that body will have more thermal energy, because of the blanket." The response: "You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. There is no sequence. Blankets do not create energy. They do not reduce entropy. There is no blanket in the atmosphere or around Earth. Earth does not generate it's own energy out of nothing" and then "RQAA" Seem like a direct answer to you GFM? What's your answer? RQAA tmiddles wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: I was operating on the assumption...Reflect...Absorb...Transmit... Why operate on that assumption?...many possibilities ...that tells you that photons you somehow conclude are necessarily absorbed ... necessarily aren't. So you are saying you don't know but it's NOT absorbed? That's an answer. Do we finally have this one completed? RQAA tmiddles wrote: Question: What happens to the radiance from the walls of the cooler room you are in when it reaches your skin? IBD's Answer: It is not absorbed. I got that right? RQAA tmiddles wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote: If two people are murdered at the same time and their dead bodies lie side by side. One covered with a blanket, the other without one, which body is warmer hours later? When a dead body is covered in a blanket, when does its temperature increase? It doesn't, it's cooling the whole time. While both bodies cool the body covered with the blanket will be warmer than the body not covered by a blanket as the hours go by. It will get very near the ambient temperature after the body without a blanket does. Spam. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...greenhouse gas of ambient temperature is applied/sprayed to the body and to the blanket. How long will it take for the cadaver's temperature to increase 1degC? It won't increase! See above. ALL of the thermal energy that caused it to exceed the ambient temperature was due to metabolic activity and they are now dead. So they will only cool. IBdaMann wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: Does that mean you believe we know nothing about the emissivity of the moon? ...do not know the value of the moon's emissivity. What happened to "to within a useful margin of error" ? RQAA tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:.you do not know ..It might very well be 0.1, it might be 0.9, it might be something else entirely ... Again the game playing of pretending that I personally need to do the work or we can't talk about it. As you know we've been to the moon several times. But really the question is not about the emissivity of the moon it's about what ITN means when he claims humanity "does not know" something. He has chosen to say that a lot but never clear up what he means by it. RQAA tmiddles wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote:Whenever you are given examples of things that can be known, you insist that they cannot be known due to inherent uncertainty. I'm simply pointing out that we never know exactly/perfectly. There is a margin of error. The flip side is that we rarely don't know at all. It might be a huge margin of error but it'll be quantifiable. "We don't know" is said far too often and is far too sloppy on this board. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You keep quoting random numbers. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content of Earth. You keep quoting random numbers. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth, Venus, or any other body. You keep quoting random numbers. It is not possible to measure a global sea level. You keep quoting random numbers. It is not possible to measure even the temperature of a house unless you use a LOT of thermometers. You keep quoting random numbers. You keep attempting to redefine 'variance', 'tolerance', 'performance', 'margin of error', and make numerous math errors. You keep attempting to associate photons with a temperature. Photons have no temperature. You keep trying to conflate different forms of energy as equivalent. They are not equivalent. You keep trying to conflate two different thermodynamics systems as if they were the same system. Not possible. You keep trying to declare a closed system as open. Not possible. You keep trying to put words in people's mouths. No one has said nothing can be measured except YOU. Thermometers and other instruments have specific purposes. They are built for a reason. It is YOU that attempts to conflate a measurement with bad statistical math, as if they were the same thing. You keep trying to contrive extreme arguments and examples that mean nothing. You keep making up buzzwords and never define them. You keep attempting to equivocate two different arguments as the same argument. That's a fallacy. You keep forming invalid 'proofs' based on false authorities and contrivances, and false equivocations. You keep asking the same questions over and over, even though they've already been answered, often many times. You keep making the same statements over and over, never taking any other argument from another into account. Argument by repetition is a fallacy. You keep spamming old conversations and threads across multiple threads. I must warn you now, that this sort of behavior can get people banned from this board. It has happened before for exactly this reason. 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
27-06-2020 04:07
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I think you covered it Parrot boy well done that is exactly how I am reading it.The Tmids sent me pictures of all the ice in a location in 1940 then all the ice gone in the same location recently but it was clear the sea level was 30 feet or so lower.The thread fizzled out and that was that
30-06-2020 09:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Any photons that you claim would violate thermodynamics... based on this: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. Which is not and never has been a law of thermodynamics. It's total crap and you made it up! I have proven it's BS by demonstrating that it CANNOT be true because there is no explanation for our ability to maintain body temperature if it were. Now you are welcome to have an argument as to how it is still true but you'll need to explain how you're not freezing to death. How do you explain the ability of the human body to maintain body temperature when the loss of thermal energy to radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann, is undeniably so great that we MUST have something to offset it? IBdaMann wrote:We don't know the emissivity of either to any usable margin of error. How about human skin? Do we know it's emissivity to a useful margin of error? IBdaMann wrote: I recommend you just get back to making your case for Global Warming. No I think fundamental thermodynamics comes first. This topics is about the thermodynamics of a person in a room. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm simply pointing out that we never know exactly/perfectly. ... I know exactly/perfectly that I have a nine of diamonds And that your friend David is named David. That's an abstract concept not a measurement. "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 30-06-2020 09:17
30-06-2020 10:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.[/url] Which is not and never has been a law of thermodynamics. I never said it was. I specifically said something else. It's total crap and you totally misrepresented my position! tgoebbles wrote: I have proven it's BS by ... ... misrepresenting what I wrote. tgoebbles wrote: How do you explain the ability of the human body to maintain body temperature when the loss of thermal energy to radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann, is undeniably so great that we MUST have something to offset it? Are you making any statements about thermal energy in there anywhere? tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:We don't know the emissivity of either to any usable margin of error. How about human skin? Do we know it's emissivity to a useful margin of error? Someone has once again decided to confuse science models. I wonder who that could be? [hint: human skin is a substance/material] tgoebbles wrote: No I think fundamental thermodynamics comes first. Great! Fabulous! Go back and get your models straight. I will respect your wishes to not move forward until you do. tgoebbles wrote: This topics is about the thermodynamics of a person in a room. Nope. You just made the topic "thermodynamics fundamentals." We are going to be focusing on the flow of thermal energy. You made a wise decision. tgoebbles wrote: And that your friend David is named David. That's an abstract concept not a measurement. You are WRONG! That they are called "bricks" is not a measure, but that there are 137 bricks in the pile most certainly is, and I can know it to absolute certainty. "Good denial make awesomely flawed arguments;." - IBDaMann ITN/IBD Food exposed to mushrooms sauteed in port sherry: The 2nd LTD prevents cooler mushrooms from increasing the temperature of the hotter frying pan Max Planck deceased for 73 years tgoebbles never got the memo; he thinks he just "knows" temperatures of entire planets, justifying his omniscience by mentioning that humans successfully navigated a probe to its death on Venus, hence no data is ever needed for tgoebbles . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
30-06-2020 16:52
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote:... deleted tmiddlesC3a... No valid argumentation presented.
30-06-2020 21:41
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	While this link is to NASA, it shows the thermohaline circulation flowing from the west coast of Africa to the east coast of the US then north into the Arctic. And since the Earth is literally closer to the Sun than it was 120 years ago, simply means that it could be moving more heat over the course of it's flow. The video also shows the Southern Oscillation which influences Australia's weather. The hole in the ozone layer influences that as it causes warmer springs on the southern African continent. https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/videos/thermohaline-circulation-great-ocean-conveyor-belt#:~:text=This%20usually%20occurs%20in%20the%20equatorial%20ocean%2C%20mostly,is%20caused%20by%20temperature%20and%20salinity%20%28haline%29%20variations.
30-06-2020 23:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...20a1...20a2...20a3...20r3...29...15a...29...20r3...15a...20q3...20r3...20a4...20a2...20q1...20q2...20q3...20q5...16b... No argument presented. Denial of science. Repetition. RQAA. 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
01-07-2020 12:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Here is the whole post: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So this is an unclear presentation by hockeyshtick in my view. I agree. tmiddles wrote: That if EM radiation reaches an object and fails to achieve the necessary energy level it will not be thermalized. That is correct; it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics hardcoded into Planck's tmiddles wrote:But what happens to it? You are going to have a difficult time finding a satisfying answer. This is all I can tell you without researching it further: 1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed. Disappointing, eh? Now don't tell anyone I said this, and I'll deny it if you do ... but as much as I claim to know absolutely everything, there are actually a couple of things I don't know. This is one of them. There might be someone out there who has a model for the activity of thermal photons that are insufficient to be absorbed under Planck's, but I haven't seen it. tmiddles wrote:Also would A shed energy through radiance just the same, just as quickly, without the plates B being there? Yes. Radiance is driven by absolute temperature alone.
01-07-2020 16:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Notice the deliberate wording "built into." Quantum mechanics is not thermodynamics. Quantum mechanics must adhere to thermodynamics but is not, itself, thermodydnamics. Ergo, if you are going to try to convince me that thermodynamics is being violated just because your mind can only presume that all photons are always absorbed then I simply dismiss your argument. If, by being absorbed, a photon would be violating the laws of thermodynamics then I claim that photon is not being absorbed, regardless of your inability to admit to yourself that you are not omniscient and that you do not understand the nature of the quantum world ... and regardless of your insistence that your cognitive shortcomings are somehow my fault. Once again, I never claimed that any model of radiance or of electromagnetic radiation was a law of thermodynamics. Only a scientifically illiterate moron who refuses to learn about the topics that cause him to go apoplectic would misunderstand and misinterpret to the extent that you do. So, tell me more about how you track every photon. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
01-07-2020 16:21
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: still true but you'll need to explain how you're not freezing to death. How do you explain the ability of the human body to maintain body temperature when the loss of thermal energy to radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann, is undeniably so great that we MUST have something to offset it? Blood vessels and veins constrict creating more friction? Interestingly enough it doesn't work this way in the atmosphere like at night when the tropopause is closer to the Earth's surface. In atmospheric gasses, linear velocity is relative to both the number of collisions and intensity which release stored electromagnetic radiation.ie, heat. When rubbing 2 things together, that friction creates many collisions in a denser molecule such as what warms the bipedal hominid. Even quadrupeds for that matter. p.s., with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, I think it's only meant for electrical engineering and electronics. This is because it's the emissivity of a material that has electricity flowing through it. And then it basically quantifies the radiance of a capacitor if the capacitor has a surface area instead of a line out. With that said, antennae would be to show broadcasting power which has a surface radiance. But anymore, it's the answer for everything.
01-07-2020 17:58
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Mantra 29.
01-07-2020 21:58
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Notice the deliberate wording "built into." Your post doesn't have the words "built into"? You made a claim about photons. IBdaMann wrote: 1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. This topic is a counterargument to your post (quoted in it's entirety in my last post) showing that your claim is false. I never said it was anything other than radiance. Your pretending that there are somehow ruled governing what we can talk about regarding your claim and my disproving it is just a game you're playing to try and save face. Edited on 01-07-2020 21:59

01-07-2020 22:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Notice the deliberate wording "built into." Your post doesn't have the words "built into"? You made a claim about photons. IBdaMann wrote: 1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. This topic is a counterargument to your post (quoted in it's entirety in my last post) showing that your claim is false. I never said it was anything other than radiance. Your pretending that there are somehow ruled governing what we can talk about regarding your claim and my disproving it is just a game you're playing to try and save face. Did you have any sort of point to make beyond you still haven't learned anything? Shall we close this out or do I need to rake you over the coals a bit more? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
01-07-2020 22:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Notice the deliberate wording "built into." Your post doesn't have the words "built into"? You made a claim about photons. IBdaMann wrote: 1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. This topic is a counterargument to your post (quoted in it's entirety in my last post) showing that your claim is false. Mantra 7 tmiddles wrote: I never said it was anything other than radiance. Radiance isn't 'inward'. Radiance isn't light. Mantras 10...10... tmiddles wrote: Your pretending that there are somehow ruled governing what we can talk about regarding your claim and my disproving it is just a game you're playing to try and save face. You don't get to speak for others. You only get to speak for you. Mantras 30...7...21d... No argument presented. Denial of science. Assumption of victory fallacies. Semantics fallacies. Redefinition fallacies. 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
01-07-2020 22:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Radiance isn't 'inward'. Radiance isn't light. What? Radiance IS light. I never said anything about "inward" did I?
01-07-2020 23:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Radiance isn't 'inward'. Radiance isn't light. What? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Radiance IS light. WRONG. Mantra 10 (radiance<->light). tmiddles wrote: I never said anything about "inward" did I? 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
01-07-2020 23:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Radiance isn't 'inward'. Radiance isn't light. What? Radiance IS light. I never said anything about "inward" did I? You don't understand radiance, do you? Radiance is heat. Whether it's Planck's constant or the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, same thing. 1 second/joule = 1 watt. Temperature is measured in mols. How much electromagnetic radiation is being emitted/second in a given volume? If you'd like, I could post the math. You'd need to say which format because there are slight variations. And tmiddles, it isn't just you. It seems that everyone in this forum doesn't understand how heat and temperature are calculated. That's as Boltzmann's ideal gas law goes. That's a starting point for people considering atmospheric physics. Edited on 01-07-2020 23:48
02-07-2020 00:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Radiance IS light. WRONG. Mantra 10 (radiance<->light). If you mean that "light" refers to what human beings can see OK. A useless point to make though. Just to show how totally you waste everyone's time here. This is a quote from you from 25-05-2018 link Into the Night wrote:...there is still light...just not visible light.... Radiance is light, not thermal energy. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I never said anything about "inward" did I? Yes. On 11. August 2019, 07:09 ??? Search for "inward" on this board, last time I used it was Aug 2019
02-07-2020 00:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Radiance IS light. WRONG. Mantra 10 (radiance<->light). If you mean that "light" refers to what human beings can see OK. A useless point to make though. Just to show how totally you waste everyone's time here. This is a quote from you from 25-05-2018 link Into the Night wrote:...there is still light...just not visible light.... Radiance is light, not thermal energy. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I never said anything about "inward" did I? Yes. On 11. August 2019, 07:09 ??? Search for "inward" on this board, last time I used it was Aug 2019 The link seems to be quoting me. And I did say either state your own work or quote someone else's. It's still true today in my opinion. Quoting myself; This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves. People are thinking when they consider other opinions. At the same time, they can disagree. This is too basic. For you ITN, I will give an example. The Powhatans no longer exist because? Please give an answer ITN. I know they're stupid. I mean I am descended from them so they can't be smart, right? This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.
02-07-2020 00:53
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	@ITN and GFM, there are no Powhatans. I know this and to me, that matters. And when that doesn't matter to other people, I am not them. If ya'all don't get this, 1/2 American and am descended from the Powhatans who don't exist. Edited on 02-07-2020 01:00
05-07-2020 11:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you totally misrepresented my position! How is that? Notice the deliberate wording "built into." Your post doesn't have the words "built into"? You made a claim about photons. IBdaMann wrote: 1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. This topic is a counterargument to your post (quoted in it's entirety in my last post) showing that your claim is false. I never said it was anything other than radiance. Your pretending that there are somehow ruled governing what we can talk about regarding your claim and my disproving it is just a game you're playing to try and save face. Did you have any sort of point to make beyond you still haven't learned anything? Shall we close this out or do I need to rake you over the coals a bit more? Well I never got response but IBD has posted this here link: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Wouldn't this contradict an actual greenhouse? It's hot air who's thermal energy is being held within the space (green house or atmosphere). Light isn't being trapped, but the heat is being held. It's energy from the sun and so it's not being created just stored a bit longer. It's interesting that you thought you could get away with claiming that you were never discussing thermal energy since it was exactly what you came here to preach.... So I'm responding in the appropriate place, here. I have of course never claimed I wasn't discussing thermal energy when I pointed out that this topic, "NET THERMAL RADIATION" is about radiation. The reason we are talking about it is because radiance in how thermal energy is transmitted through space. As ITN has said: link Into the Night wrote: Radiation can indeed be the flow of thermal energy, though not directly. Radiant heat is one form of heating. It is heat if and only if the radiance is absorbed by another substance. Light that is not absorbed is not heat. Light itself is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy, but light can also be heat. Sounds accurate to me. What do you think IBD? You have yet to respond to the example of this topic. How is it that a human body maintains body temperature if it is not absorbing radiance from it's cooler surroundings? Edited on 05-07-2020 11:42
05-07-2020 20:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted due to tmiddles ordinance #1... Denial of history. Denial of science. Spam. 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 05-07-2020 20:53

Page 7 of 16

Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Van Allen radiation belts and the Tropopause	5	06-01-2024 23:46
The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net	20	18-11-2023 22:35
Anyone explain how does N2 and O2 don't absorb electromagnetic radiation?	49	02-02-2023 01:23
Under Dorsey the FBI literally determined everything that Twitter was allowed to put on the net	3	03-01-2023 19:25
Net Metering	7	10-12-2020 14:37