Remember me
▼ Content

Question


Question21-05-2017 18:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Energy is typically in the form of an alternating energy wave.

The Sun exudes energy in the visible light spectrum for the most part while the Earth exudes energy in the thermal IR range.

Now, since a sine wave carries as much energy above zero as below it, is there more energy carried by the thermal IR wavelengths as in the visible spectrum and if so how does it?
22-05-2017 02:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
Wake wrote:The Sun exudes energy in the visible light spectrum for the most part while the Earth exudes energy in the thermal IR range.

The sun radiates about 51% in the IR and about 49% in the visible light.

Wake wrote: Now, since a sine wave carries as much energy above zero as below it,...

"zero" is nothing more than a relative reference point.

All the energy from the sun that is absorbed by the earth will be radiated in a new form (new wavelength) and the 1st LoT will be forthwith adhered.


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
22-05-2017 02:39
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:
Energy is typically in the form of an alternating energy wave.

The Sun exudes energy in the visible light spectrum for the most part while the Earth exudes energy in the thermal IR range.

Now, since a sine wave carries as much energy above zero as below it, is there more energy carried by the thermal IR wavelengths as in the visible spectrum and if so how does it?


Not exactly sure what the question is.

I kind of disagree with the first statement about energy being in the form of an alternating wave. Kind of. The different forms of potential energy aren't particularly wave related. Heat, thermal energy, isn't particularly wave related. Electrical energy can be. Our electrical grid definitely does use AC, but batteries don't.
Electromagnetic radiation is often depicted as a wave, but that's a simplification. You've likely already read that light and other electromagnetic energy has both wave properties and particulate properties. In the case of sunlight and other incandescent/thermal wide spectrum sources, there are many wavelengths involved with no particular overall order. In the case of a laser, then there is more order, and visualizing a single sinusoidal wavetrain can be OK.

In your second sentence, yes, the Sun emits more visible light than either UV or IR and the Earth emits IR (but also reflects some of the visible sunlight that strikes it.)

You asked "....is there more energy carried by the thermal IR wavelengths as in the visible spectrum and if so how does it?" I don't fully understand the question, but I think the answer is no.

If the context is global warming, then no. Assuming no warming, then stable overall temperature, incoming energy from sunlight (visible and UV and IR and whatever else) is balanced by net top-of-atmosphere outgoing. With warming, then there's a tad less outgoing energy than incoming. Not more outgoing energy, not now.

You question probably didn't have to do with particles of visible light or of IR, but the energy embodied in individual quanta does vary with the frequency (or inversely with wavelength). Individual quanta of IR carry less energy than individual quanta of visible light.

Maybe I didn't understand your question at all.
22-05-2017 05:28
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
This might be a useful tool, if you want to play with it..
Attached file:
planck.xls
22-05-2017 05:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:The Sun exudes energy in the visible light spectrum for the most part while the Earth exudes energy in the thermal IR range.

The sun radiates about 51% in the IR and about 49% in the visible light.

Wake wrote: Now, since a sine wave carries as much energy above zero as below it,...

"zero" is nothing more than a relative reference point.

All the energy from the sun that is absorbed by the earth will be radiated in a new form (new wavelength) and the 1st LoT will be forthwith adhered.


Although much hotter on the inside, we can closely approximate the surface of the sun, from which its emission occurs, as a black body at a temperature of about 5800 K. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation then gives the energy flux emitted at the sun's surface.

SS = (5.67 × 10–8 W·m–2·K–4)(5800 K)4 = 63 × 10^6 W·m–2

around the red wavelength of 0.6 µm, however, there is over 2,000 W/m2. From 0.75 µm or so, there is infrared radiation ranging from about 1,000 W/m2/µm at 0.8 µm to about 100 W/m2/µm at 2.2 µm. This relatively low level of energy persists far into the infrared region.

Can you tell the difference between a full radiance of 63 x 10^6 and 1000 tapering to 100?

I asked this question about energy and wavelength for a reason and you didn't pause for one second to wonder why.

And what exactly did you learn from anything other than to pass out rediculous answers to what is going on in your head?
22-05-2017 05:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
Energy is typically in the form of an alternating energy wave.

The Sun exudes energy in the visible light spectrum for the most part while the Earth exudes energy in the thermal IR range.

Now, since a sine wave carries as much energy above zero as below it, is there more energy carried by the thermal IR wavelengths as in the visible spectrum and if so how does it?


Not exactly sure what the question is.

I kind of disagree with the first statement about energy being in the form of an alternating wave. Kind of. The different forms of potential energy aren't particularly wave related. Heat, thermal energy, isn't particularly wave related. Electrical energy can be. Our electrical grid definitely does use AC, but batteries don't.
Electromagnetic radiation is often depicted as a wave, but that's a simplification. You've likely already read that light and other electromagnetic energy has both wave properties and particulate properties. In the case of sunlight and other incandescent/thermal wide spectrum sources, there are many wavelengths involved with no particular overall order. In the case of a laser, then there is more order, and visualizing a single sinusoidal wavetrain can be OK.

In your second sentence, yes, the Sun emits more visible light than either UV or IR and the Earth emits IR (but also reflects some of the visible sunlight that strikes it.)

You asked "....is there more energy carried by the thermal IR wavelengths as in the visible spectrum and if so how does it?" I don't fully understand the question, but I think the answer is no.

If the context is global warming, then no. Assuming no warming, then stable overall temperature, incoming energy from sunlight (visible and UV and IR and whatever else) is balanced by net top-of-atmosphere outgoing. With warming, then there's a tad less outgoing energy than incoming. Not more outgoing energy, not now.

You question probably didn't have to do with particles of visible light or of IR, but the energy embodied in individual quanta does vary with the frequency (or inversely with wavelength). Individual quanta of IR carry less energy than individual quanta of visible light.

Maybe I didn't understand your question at all.


But then how is the wavelengths of the Sun's emissions described in gms terms?

You're getting close.
22-05-2017 05:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Leitwolf wrote:
This might be a useful tool, if you want to play with it..


You of course have the correct answer - but again - you have to put it into terms that are understandable. This wasn't for a paper but for teaching purposes.

Our friend that is so quick to quote Stefan-Boltzmann which is based upon Planck's constant is completely in the dark about this question, let alone it's answer. And the only reason for this is he is too quick to judge people instead of science.
22-05-2017 06:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
Wake wrote: Although much hotter on the inside, we can closely approximate the surface of the sun, from which its emission occurs, as a black body at a temperature of about 5800 K.

Really? I was under the impression that the sun has neither surface nor boundary.

But you know the temperature of its surface, you say?

Wake wrote: Can you tell the difference between a full radiance of 63 x 10^6 and 1000 tapering to 100?

Honestly, without units of measure I cannot.

Wake wrote: I asked this question about energy and wavelength for a reason and you didn't pause for one second to wonder why.

You can tell whether I paused or not, and for how long?

Wake wrote:You of course have the correct answer - but again - you have to put it into terms that are understandable. This wasn't for a paper but for teaching purposes.

... without units of measure?

Wake wrote: Our friend that is so quick to quote Stefan-Boltzmann ...

One does not "quote" a science model.

Wake wrote: ... which is based upon Planck's constant ...

<head in hands> (sigh) </head in hands>

Stefan-Boltzmann is DERIVED from Planck's LAW, not from Planck's constant.


Yeah, *I'm* the one that's "in the dark."


.


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
22-05-2017 06:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Although much hotter on the inside, we can closely approximate the surface of the sun, from which its emission occurs, as a black body at a temperature of about 5800 K.

Really? I was under the impression that the sun has neither surface nor boundary.

But you know the temperature of its surface, you say?

Wake wrote: Can you tell the difference between a full radiance of 63 x 10^6 and 1000 tapering to 100?

Honestly, without units of measure I cannot.

Wake wrote: I asked this question about energy and wavelength for a reason and you didn't pause for one second to wonder why.

You can tell whether I paused or not, and for how long?

Wake wrote:You of course have the correct answer - but again - you have to put it into terms that are understandable. This wasn't for a paper but for teaching purposes.

... without units of measure?

Wake wrote: Our friend that is so quick to quote Stefan-Boltzmann ...

One does not "quote" a science model.

Wake wrote: ... which is based upon Planck's constant ...

<head in hands> (sigh) </head in hands>

Stefan-Boltzmann is DERIVED from Planck's LAW, not from Planck's constant.


Yeah, *I'm* the one that's "in the dark."


.


And again you show your cowardice running away from the point.

And now you're telling us that Planck's constant has nothing to do with Planck's law. Nice going.
22-05-2017 14:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
Wake wrote:. And now you're telling us that Planck's constant has nothing to do with Planck's law. Nice going.

Liar.

You cannot distinguish between a science model and a numerical constant, and you need to somehow blame me for your embarrassment.

So, the question from which you running is "what is your falsifiable expression of 'greenhouse effect' that doesn't violatie physics?"

Without answering this question, you have no "points" or "questions" that aren't merely distractors.


.


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
22-05-2017 18:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:. And now you're telling us that Planck's constant has nothing to do with Planck's law. Nice going.

Liar.

You cannot distinguish between a science model and a numerical constant, and you need to somehow blame me for your embarrassment.

So, the question from which you running is "what is your falsifiable expression of 'greenhouse effect' that doesn't violatie physics?"

Without answering this question, you have no "points" or "questions" that aren't merely distractors..


There is no need to argue with someone that so obviously has serious mental issues. You are doing nothing more than distracting from the real conversations here so I will no longer respond to you. Go tell it on the mountain.
23-05-2017 13:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
Wake wrote: There is no need to argue with someone that so obviously has serious mental issues. You are doing nothing more than distracting from the real conversations here so I will no longer respond to you. Go tell it on the mountain.

All "climate lemmings" such as yourself chime the exact same thing after writing stupid crap, backing themselves into corners and being exposed as science deniers.

You are embarrassed and bulveristic, a bad combination that produces shihtead morons. Of course you will no longer respond to me ... you just realized that you cannot do so without embarrassing the crap out of yourself. You cannot be corrected without totally losing your composure.

You came to this forum with the sole purpose of role-playing a smart person and you somehow blame me for your inability to support your stupid religious beliefs.


.


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
24-05-2017 01:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:. And now you're telling us that Planck's constant has nothing to do with Planck's law. Nice going.

Liar.

You cannot distinguish between a science model and a numerical constant, and you need to somehow blame me for your embarrassment.

So, the question from which you running is "what is your falsifiable expression of 'greenhouse effect' that doesn't violatie physics?"

Without answering this question, you have no "points" or "questions" that aren't merely distractors..


There is no need to argue with someone that so obviously has serious mental issues. You are doing nothing more than distracting from the real conversations here so I will no longer respond to you. Go tell it on the mountain.

So then rather confront your confusion between a theory and a constant, you would rather say someone has a 'mental issue' and go away and sulk like a child.


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




Join the debate Question:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Loaded question2817-06-2020 02:32
Physics of climate change question609-02-2020 23:22
Climate is a question of price offering113-12-2019 05:33
Climate Change Question1528-06-2019 06:48
Question for the Einsteins020-04-2019 17:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact