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

tmiddles wrote:

You are: Temp ~

tmiddles wrote:

You are: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

How you lose thermal energy(ref):

1- Radiance emission primarily (why you glow in infra-red goggles).
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

2- Evaporation/sweating when "hot" / excercising

3- Conduction with the air around you a bit

How you gain thermal energy:

1- Radiance absorbtion primarily.

tmiddles wrote:
In a 70F/22C/295K room there is a radiance which is absorbed: .__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)295K^4=+624W
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
2- Digestion of food . A 2000 Calorie diet, 7/8th of a pizza, creates about 100 watts ( 1 Calorie = 4180 Joules, 8,360,000 J / 86,400 seconds a day ~ 100)

tmiddles wrote:
3- Conduction with the air and objects around you. Remember there is no such thing as cold, only less warm.

tmiddles wrote:
Does it balance at 70F ? YES

tmiddles wrote:
You don't sweat or shiver in a 70F / 22C room. Thermal energy balances with radiant emission -723 watts and radiant absorption +624 watts and your metabolism digesting food +100 watts.

tmiddles wrote:
Great reference combining the equations (click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

tmiddles wrote:
You notice the differences, warmer/colder, but even in 70F you are gushing thermal energy and having it pour into you from radiance.

tmiddles wrote:
Just as you don't notice gravity or air pressure.

tmiddles wrote:
What if you suddenly couldn't lose energy

This would be some impossible Harry Potter stuff but you would increase in temperature continuously, gaining 624W from the walls radiance and 100W from your insides (while you lived). (ref)

You only need to go up 3C, from 37C to 40C, to die, so you'll be a goner after just 15 minutes! (Specific heat is 3470 so it's 3470*3*62kg=645420=891s=15min)

tmiddles wrote:
What if you suddenly couldn't absorb energy

This is actually the same scenario as being in deep space where there is no ambient radiance to absorb. It's been calculated you'd freeze solid in 11 hours
WRONG. Nothing would happen. It is NOT like being in space.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
But what if you really worked out to generate more heat, and ate a lot! You better be hungry. Since 2000 calories, 7/8 of a pizza, gives you 100 watts of heat you'll need 14,000 calories, and eat 6 large pizzas a day, working it all of, just to maintain body temperature!

tmiddles wrote:
Why is the relevant to climate-debate.com?

See the topic here: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

tmiddles wrote:
The false statement is made that a warmer body can't absorb radiation from a cooler body,

tmiddles wrote:
that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because thermal energy always flows from hot to cold

tmiddles wrote:
(as in it would be impossible for you to absorb the 624 watts radiated to you from the room, the freezing in deep space scenario).

tmiddles wrote:
Basically there are some who believe a "net flow" of thermal energy is impossible.

tmiddles wrote:
This belief contradicts the text books

tmiddles wrote:
and common sense,

tmiddles wrote:
as it leaves no answer for how a person in a room manages to not freeze to death.

tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.

tmiddles wrote:As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course there can be no alternative to your explanation...

tmiddles wrote:Well not so far. I'm all ears.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Well not so far. I'm all ears.

No you're not.

You are in total ignore mode.

.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Well not so far. I'm all ears.

No you're not.

You are in total ignore mode.

.

And your explanation for how an ordinary person in an ordinary room maintains body temperature is _______________________________.

IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

tmiddles wrote:You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case.

IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?

IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?

What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.

Very impressive calculation.

So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts through radiance but makes is up by gaining energy through conduction? From a cooler environment?

Yeah.... You got nothing.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course there can be no alternative to your explanation...

Well not so far. I'm all ears.

tmiddles wrote:
And nothing stops you from explaining how your theory a warmer body cannot absorb energy from a cooler one is possible.

tmiddles wrote:
My example disproves it.

tmiddles wrote:
You have been resoundingly debunked, fraudsters.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case.

tmiddles wrote:
All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts.

tmiddles wrote:
Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

tmiddles wrote:
The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

tmiddles wrote:
It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

tmiddles wrote:
Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

tmiddles wrote:
And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

tmiddles wrote:
You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?

What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case. All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts. Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.

HarveyH55 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case. All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts. Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.

How much man-made CO2 is in the room? 400 ppm has a powerful warming effect on the planet, maybe it does the same to people...

I still think your skin, and that layer of fat under, has a lot to do with keeping your internal temperature stable.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly?

HarveyH55 wrote:
700 watts seems like a very large number.

HarveyH55 wrote:
My drip coffee maker is 800 watts. My Microwave is 1000 watts, both boil water pretty quick.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The skin surface warms and cools with the ambient temperature. In the winter time, when someone who just came in from outdoors, their skin is cold, not 98.6F. Shove a thermometer in their mouth, it'll still read 98.6F though.

HarveyH55 wrote:
[Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly? 700 watts seems like a very large number.

Into the Night wrote:
Walking into a warmer room simply means you don't have to heat it as much as a colder room.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly? 700 watts seems like a very large number.

Harvey you'd agree that ITN and IBdaMann regard themselves as being experts on applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law right?

tmiddles wrote:
Notice neither dare do this calculation.

tmiddles wrote:
It is actually over 700 watts yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Since the room you're in is also radiating you notice the difference.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Notice neither dare do this calculation.

Not using YOUR equation, which is NOT the Stefan-Boltzmann law, no. There is no point.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Notice neither dare do this calculation.

Not using YOUR equation, which is NOT the Stefan-Boltzmann law, no. There is no point.

Use the right equation. Do it properly.

I know you can't but I'm not stopping you.

Into the Night wrote:
Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again.

You definitely did not but go ahead a copy paste or quote. Easy to do.

Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did

Nope

Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did.

And the answer was?

Into the Night wrote:
Go look it up. I am through patronizing your repetitive question and your denial of what you talked about.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?

Let's see. Did I do it right?:

For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Go look it up. I am through patronizing your repetitive question and your denial of what you talked about.

Yeah it's clear you don't have the time to kill or the energy to cut and paste your mythical answer and prove me wrong.

Lame!

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?

Let's see. Did I do it right?:

For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

Into the Night wrote:
Duplication ignored. Answered in the other thread.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
...723W

Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU.

It's as much randU as saying a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs though right? It's in a normal range. All the values used are.

So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:

tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place

This book is in error.

* Emissivity has no frequency.
* Radiance doesn't take place in a single band.
* There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows in one direction.
* There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Heat IS transfer of thermal energy.
* The emissivity of human skin is unknown.
* Conductive and convective heat are being utterly ignored.
* There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* You cannot hold or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. It always flows in one direction.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

This book ignores all of these things. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:
University Physics Volume 2

This book is in error.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Duplication ignored. Answered in the other thread.

And it was! Thank you:

Bringing the discussion here to keep things better organized.
Your post there: other topic

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
...723W

Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU.

It's as much randU as saying a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs though right? It's in a normal range. All the values used are.

So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:

tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place

This book is in error.

* Emissivity has no frequency.
* Radiance doesn't take place in a single band.
* There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows in one direction.
* There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Heat IS transfer of thermal energy.
* The emissivity of human skin is unknown.
* Conductive and convective heat are being utterly ignored.
* There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* You cannot hold or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. It always flows in one direction.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

This book ignores all of these things. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

My response here:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:
University Physics Volume 2

This book is in error.

Well I don't want to make as though I came up with this on my own.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm being a consensus thinker on this I will admit that up front.

tmiddles wrote:
It's consistent that you'd find the book made errors since this hinges on their teaching "Net Flow" for radiant energy.

tmiddles wrote:
So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

tmiddles wrote:
The real question is how the thermal energy of a person balances out. We do generate our own energy and it becomes thermal energy. I have that at 2000 calories a day giving a person about 100 watts to work with.

tmiddles wrote:
So where do you see the missing 623 watts coming from?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

They are not picked from a common range. We don't even know what the 'range' is!
For example, I have seen people claim anywhere from 12.5 to 98.0 for the emissivity of human skin.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

They are not picked from a common range. We don't even know what the 'range' is!
For example, I have seen people claim anywhere from 12.5 to 98.0 for the emissivity of human skin.

I actually linked to all my sources.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you dispute that there are people with?:
Skin temp ~ 91F/33C/306K,

tmiddles wrote:
Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin,

tmiddles wrote:
Emissivity ~ 0.97

tmiddles wrote:
Since it's safe to say you can measure emissivity for someones skin, you can take the temperature of their skin and you can measure their surface area of their skin isn't it true we can calculate their radiance? It's not "unknowable" at all.

tmiddles wrote:
How about to within +/- 25% ?

tmiddles wrote:
I calculated a 724 watt loss (the book did),

tmiddles wrote:
and calculated 100 watts from food on a 2000 calorie diet (maximum).

tmiddles wrote:
So the problem of the missing energy is still there even if I'd calculated 1/2 that wattage of radiance and twice the wattage of caloric energy.

Into the Night wrote:...
Yes. Not all people have the same skin temperature.
Yes. The surface area of a human varies, even from day to day...
The emissivity of human skin is unknown
I am not here to deal or to negotiate an 'acceptable' tolerance of random numbers.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE"......So you should give an example of "Doing it right"...

... because you have limited the discussions to things we can't know and can't measure.
Why don't you try discussing something that *can* be measured/known?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...
Yes. Not all people have the same skin temperature.
Yes. The surface area of a human varies, even from day to day...
The emissivity of human skin is unknown
I am not here to deal or to negotiate an 'acceptable' tolerance of random numbers.

No one can force you to think about these things.

I've asked you and IBdaMann in the past to provide an example of knowledge gained and applied properly and you've always refused.

tmiddles wrote:
from CO2 topic

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:...it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE"......So you should give an example of "Doing it right"...

... because you have limited the discussions to things we can't know and can't measure.
Why don't you try discussing something that *can* be measured/known?

I have two very simple questions for you ITN and IBdaMann:
Can human height be known?

tmiddles wrote:
Can human weight be known?

tmiddles wrote:
If I say that a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs is the subject of a calculation would you call that "Unknowable" and randU?