stefan boltzmann

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > stefan boltzmann

Page 1 of 6

stefan boltzmann03-01-2021 05:12
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Heat Radiation Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Calculation While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object. I would like to thank IBDM and ITN for the patience they have shown me as I have waded through the climate debate however I have spent the last week studing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and fail to see where it proves that no gas or vapour can warm the Earth.My interpretation is all matter has radiance including gasses.I am standing by my slavemasters Willie Soon and Don Easterbrook who state that sure CO2 can radiate energy as it is struck by UV light but it does next to nothing to atmospheric temperature.Its still- 60 at the stratosphere duncan61
03-01-2021 06:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	duncan61 wrote:... however I have spent the last week studing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and fail to see where it proves that no gas or vapour can warm the Earth. Glad to help. Look at the Stefan-Boltzmann law and focus on the "atmospheric composition" variable. Notice how it relates to Temperature. Oh wait, ... there is no atmospheric composition component! How did that happen? Oh yeah ... it just hit me ... a body's temperature is determined by only one thing ... the amount of energy absorbed by the body and nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere (if it happens to have one). It's almost as if no gas has any power to increase the earth's temperature. Wait, where have I heard that before? What you really want is the atmospheric component of Temperature from the Ideal Gas law: Pressure * Volume = # of moles * Temperature (absolute) * universal_const Oh wait, there doesn't seem to be one there either. Well dab-nabbit ... I'm beginning to think that the earth's temperature is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of its atmospheric composition. Unless you can find that elusive composition component I'm going to have assume that no gas has any ability to affect the earth's temperature. duncan61 wrote: My interpretation is all matter has radiance including gasses. That's not merely your "interpretation" but is precisely how it is for all matter, always, everywhere. The answer to your question is that for any given body (e.g. the earth in this case) its radiance is determined by its temperature, and adheres to Stefan-Boltzmann. The total amount/rate radiated equals the total amount/rate absorbed, i.e. equilibrium. If you introduce some CO2 then sure, it will start radiating, but the energy thus radiated came from somewhere else on earth. It had to rob Peter to emit it to Paul. The total amount remains the same because you cannot create energy out of nothing and thus the earth's average temperature remains the same, just now a tad bit more evenly distributed. duncan61 wrote: I am standing by my slavemasters Willie Soon and Don Easterbrook who state that sure CO2 can radiate energy as it is struck by UV light but it does next to nothing to atmospheric temperature.Its still- 60 at the stratosphere You really should hold off on your OBEDIENCE until they change their wording from "next to nothing" to "nothing." What's the difference? "Next to nothing" is specifically not zero, which means they (and you) are clinging to your WACKY religious belief that CO2 has a non-zero magical power to defy the laws of thermodynamics. Saying specifically "nothing" acknowledges that CO2 has specifically zero magical ability to defy the laws of thermodynamics. Let me know if this answers your question ... and feel free to bring Willie and Don here to this forum. I'd love an opportunity to pick them apart in front of you. . 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
03-01-2021 06:39
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am still not convinced.If the UV light is slowed leaving the planet it is not creating energy from nothing it is retaining energy that was meant to go.The good bit is whomever has this right the big deal is it still does not matter.I do appreciate if I mention the Mythbusters experiment you may say they are charlatans.The test had 2 control and one CO2 and one Methane filled plastic greenhouses with a small ice statue on a table.Heat lamps were placed in identical positions and turned on.The control boxes both went to 28 degrees and the CO2 box went to 28.8 at the same time.So it was called myth proved CO2 does make air warmer. problems with the experiment are 1.It was in a closed container 2.When the percentage of CO2 was calculated to ppm it was 75000ppm.thats more than my car exhaust 3.It warmed .8 degree but did not continue to rise.It stayed the same 4.The Methane went to 28.9 but again stopped at that Can you explain this.I implore you to watch Don Easterbrooks presentation in 2013 to a climate council. I have many times and every point he refutes with evidence and logic does not seem to me to be the ramblings of a looney.Every question put to him is answered clearly and instantly.All the pro warming team do is keep waving pieces of paper at him which he looks at them and states I do not have that data his source is East Anglia which has been on to this since the 70s
03-01-2021 07:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	duncan61 wrote:I am still not convinced. I have some bad news for you. It's not a matter of opinion. It's simply a matter of what science you wish to deny. ... and don't let anyone tell you that you can't deny it because you can. duncan61 wrote: If the UV light is slowed leaving the planet ... right, the UV light is slowed ... to something below the speed of light . Did I get that right? duncan61 wrote: ... it is not creating energy from nothing Yes it would be. Are you claiming an increase in temperature? If so, you are either claiming that the earth is a body of matter that can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy (not possible in physics) or CO2 creates the needed additional energy out of nothing (also not possible in physics). So which physics are you denying? Are you claiming the former or the latter? duncan61 wrote:... it is retaining energy that was meant to go. Nope. NOW you are directly violating Stefan-Boltzmann. Since you are now an expert on Stefan-Boltzmann (congratulations by the way) you know that temperature and radiance necessarily move in the same direction. If temperature increases then radiance increases and if you tell me that earth's radiance has decreased then you have told me that earth's temperature has decreased, not increased. Ergo, if anyone tries to tell you (like you are trying to tell me) that the earth experiences a decrease in radiance with a corresponding increase in temperature, you can shout out right then and there "[i]You are denying Stefan-Boltzmann[/i]!" Is that your intent, i.e. to deny Stefan-Boltzmann? duncan61 wrote:I do appreciate if I mention the Mythbusters experiment you may say they are charlatans. Correct. They are not required to do anything correctly beyond getting good ratings through emotional appeals to gullible warmizombies. duncan61 wrote: The test had 2 control and one CO2 and one Methane filled plastic greenhouses The standard parlor trick that works on the gullible and the scientifically illiterate. Did you, or did you not, notice that the whole point of the trick was to get you to believe a conclusion about sunlight and atmospheric composition, yet was performed entirely indoors where no sunlight could inadvertently get in and ruin the trick? Did you notice the vast number of YouTube and other videos that perform this parlor trick to narration of the atmosphere's Greenhouse Effect with sunlight ... while not a single damn one is performed in direct sunlight? Just to let you know, I noticed all of that by the way. I can do that because I do all my own thinking. . 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
03-01-2021 07:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Heat Radiation Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: There is no 'net radiation'. There is only radiance. The equation is: r = Cet^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin. duncan61 wrote: While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. Here you are attempting to say that something warmer can absorb the light radiated from a colder object. This is not possible. No molecule or atom will absorb a photon that has less energy than that molecule or atom already has. You cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this way. duncan61 wrote: If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object. There is no 'net radiance' in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. duncan61 wrote: I would like to thank IBDM and ITN for the patience they have shown me as I have waded through the climate debate however I have spent the last week studing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and fail to see where it proves that no gas or vapour can warm the Earth. The equation is before you. Other equations also apply: 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force applied over distance). You cannot create energy out of nothing. 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. In other words, you cannot decrease entropy...ever. duncan61 wrote: My interpretation is all matter has radiance including gasses.I am standing by my slavemasters Willie Soon and Don Easterbrook who state that sure CO2 can radiate energy as it is struck by UV light but it does next to nothing to atmospheric temperature. Absorbing UV light does not result in conversion to thermal energy. It usually results in chemical energy (such as the creation or destruction of ozone. Light has no temperature. Chemical energy has no temperature. Potential energy has no temperature. Only thermal energy has a temperature. Temperature is the average thermal energy energy of a substance. duncan61 wrote: Its still- 60 at the stratosphere This is due to conversion of light into chemical energy by the creation of ozone from oxygen absorbing UV-B light. This is an endothermic reaction, and cools the air. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

03-01-2021 08:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: I am still not convinced. ...of? duncan61 wrote: If the UV light is slowed leaving the planet it is not creating energy from nothing it is retaining energy that was meant to go. No. You cannot trap light. Absorption of UV light does not convert to thermal energy. duncan61 wrote: The good bit is whomever has this right the big deal is it still does not matter.I do appreciate if I mention the Mythbusters experiment you may say they are charlatans. They are. They deny science and mathematics. They are stuntmen, showing how the movies fake things. They are entertainers. They are no better than Bill Nye. duncan61 wrote: The test had 2 control and one CO2 and one Methane filled plastic greenhouses with a small ice statue on a table.Heat lamps were placed in identical positions and turned on.The control boxes both went to 28 degrees and the CO2 box went to 28.8 at the same time.So it was called myth proved CO2 does make air warmer. No. You fell for the parlor trick again. CO2 does not make air warmer. It absorbs infrared light and becomes warmer, like many substances. The LAMPS made the CO2 warmer. duncan61 wrote: problems with the experiment are 1.It was in a closed container Wrong. Closed or open containers make no difference. duncan61 wrote: 2.When the percentage of CO2 was calculated to ppm it was 75000ppm.thats more than my car exhaust Irrelevant. Lamps make the CO2 warmer. Turn off the lamps and it returns to the same temperature as the control tank. duncan61 wrote: 3.It warmed .8 degree but did not continue to rise.It stayed the same Because the balance was struck between what it was absorbing from the lamps and what it was radiating away again. This is called equilibrium. IBD went into some discussion on this for you. duncan61 wrote: 4.The Methane went to 28.9 but again stopped at that Same thing. Same parlor trick. duncan61 wrote: Can you explain this. I just did. Neither gas is creating energy. Neither gas can trap light. Neither gas can trap heat. CO2 does absorb infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Emitting this light cools the Earth's surface. It is just another way of cooling the surface by heating the atmosphere. ALL of it...surface, atmosphere, everything, is radiating into space by converting thermal energy to electromagnetic energy (light) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This has already been explained to you. RQAA. duncan61 wrote: I implore you to watch Don Easterbrooks presentation in 2013 to a climate council. I have many times and every point he refutes with evidence and logic does not seem to me to be the ramblings of a looney. It's the ramblings of a looney. While Don Easterbrook does deny that CO2 warms the Earth, and is correct on this, he nevertheless believes that it is possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not. duncan61 wrote: Every question put to him is answered clearly and instantly. Except that one. duncan61 wrote: All the pro warming team do is keep waving pieces of paper at him which he looks at them and states I do not have that data his source is East Anglia which has been on to this since the 70s There is no data of Earth's global temperature. Anyone, including Don Easterbrook, is using random numbers as data to make a conclusion. It is a false conclusion, since it based on and argument from randU fallacy. His studies are all based on these random numbers of type randU, and he has come up with a few of his own in his 'studies' of the Puget Sound area. I am not sure if he believes in Bigfoot though. I do know he believes the Spotted Owl to be a rare bird (it's not) that lives in old growth forests (it doesn't) and landowners should be forbidden from harming this bird (ranchers shoot them to prevent environmentalists from finding them, since environmentalists will take the use of their land away). The Spotted Owl, like most owls, will nest in the tallest anything it can find (even power line towers) near an open field, where their favorite food, the mice, roam. 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 03-01-2021 08:24
03-01-2021 08:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am still not convinced. I have some bad news for you. It's not a matter of opinion. It's simply a matter of what science you wish to deny. ... and don't let anyone tell you that you can't deny it because you can. duncan61 wrote: If the UV light is slowed leaving the planet ... right, the UV light is slowed ... to something below the speed of light . Did I get that right? duncan61 wrote: ... it is not creating energy from nothing Yes it would be. Are you claiming an increase in temperature? If so, you are either claiming that the earth is a body of matter that can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy (not possible in physics) or CO2 creates the needed additional energy out of nothing (also not possible in physics). So which physics are you denying? Are you claiming the former or the latter? duncan61 wrote:... it is retaining energy that was meant to go. Nope. NOW you are directly violating Stefan-Boltzmann. Since you are now an expert on Stefan-Boltzmann (congratulations by the way) you know that temperature and radiance necessarily move in the same direction. If temperature increases then radiance increases and if you tell me that earth's radiance has decreased then you have told me that earth's temperature has decreased, not increased. Ergo, if anyone tries to tell you (like you are trying to tell me) that the earth experiences a decrease in radiance with a corresponding increase in temperature, you can shout out right then and there "[i]You are denying Stefan-Boltzmann[/i]!" Is that your intent, i.e. to deny Stefan-Boltzmann? duncan61 wrote:I do appreciate if I mention the Mythbusters experiment you may say they are charlatans. Correct. They are not required to do anything correctly beyond getting good ratings through emotional appeals to gullible warmizombies. duncan61 wrote: The test had 2 control and one CO2 and one Methane filled plastic greenhouses The standard parlor trick that works on the gullible and the scientifically illiterate. Did you, or did you not, notice that the whole point of the trick was to get you to believe a conclusion about sunlight and atmospheric composition, yet was performed entirely indoors where no sunlight could inadvertently get in and ruin the trick? Did you notice the vast number of YouTube and other videos that perform this parlor trick to narration of the atmosphere's Greenhouse Effect with sunlight ... while not a single damn one is performed in direct sunlight? Just to let you know, I noticed all of that by the way. I can do that because I do all my own thinking. . Should the tanks be placed in the sunlight, it is still not accurate. All it would show, again, is that CO2 and methane absorb infrared light. The boxes would still not duplicate the warming by infrared light the land and the water of this planet. Nor the effect of how these surfaces are cooled by heating the cooler atmosphere by either conductive heating, convective heating, or radiant heating. Neither would it show that everything is radiating light. It's just the same parlor trick outdoors, using the Sun as the lamp. 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 03-01-2021 08:32
03-01-2021 10:09
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	ITN I have kind of set you up as I copied and pasted the Stefan Bltzmann law and you are saying its wrong.IBDM I am not claiming energy is being created from nothing.The energy is coming from the sun.The atmosphere affects the planets temperature.Changing the atmosphere changes the temperature.My personal claim which is in line with the scientist I have faith in through observing their work is it is not making a lot of difference and there are too many other variables to consider.Do either of you know a scientist whos work you accept or is everyone on the planet wrong except you 2.This is a debate forum so lets have at it
03-01-2021 12:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	duncan61 wrote: ITN I have kind of set you up as I copied and pasted the Stefan Bltzmann law and you are saying its wrong. Into the Night and I already had this argument with tgoebbles. You copy-pasted from here:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html First, I have already explained to you the error of claiming any sort of energy transfer when thermal (electromagnetic) radiation is not absorbed by any matter (it just goes off into space and is not "transferred" to anything. Additionally, notice that the formula you cited simply subtracts temperature and presumes both bodies have the same emissivity (bad assumption). Also, if the "cooler surroundings" is not a vacuum then the equation needs to involve conduction (or convection as well in the case of a fluid) which you can plainly see is not there. Additionally, notice the term "energy density.". This is not a thing. Jussayn. You should be more careful as to the sites from which you copy-paste. What ITN posted is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What you posted is someone's assumption that A) thermal energy can flow from cooler to warmer (violation of 2nd LoT) and B) all photons are always absorbed by matter (simply not true) The statistical mathematics of quantum mechanics (e.g. photons) is not the same as classical physics models (black body science) and you will run into trouble anytime you pretend to switch back and forth between them as though they are the same. You will also run into problems when you don't keep your forms of energy straight. Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy nor is electromagnetic energy thermal energy. Into the Night and I will grant you that electromagnetic energy is flying in every direction everywhere. The moment you 1) jump over to quantum mechanics and erroneously claim that all photons are always absorbed and then 2) erroneously conclude that THERMAL energy therefore sometimes flows from cooler to warmer (in violation of the 2nd LoT) we have to stop everything so you can demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer so we can submit your nomination for the Nobel prize. This is the dog poop into which you stepped. tgoebbles never demonstrated thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, by the way. Feel free to ask him how he was planning to do that. duncan61 wrote:IBDM I am not claiming energy is being created from nothing Yes you are and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you about it. The sun WAS ALREADY THERE before you introduced the CO2 so nothing coming from the exact same sun is somehow "additional..You are clearly claiming that this additional energy somehow magically appears per the introduction of CO2. Yes, you are claiming that the CO2 is creating energy out of nothing. Once again, if you are claiming an increase in temperature then it is incumbent upon you TO SPECIFICALLY ACCOUNT for that additional energy that does the temperature-increasing. . 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
03-01-2021 19:52
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	What you really want is the atmospheric component of Temperature from the Ideal Gas law: Pressure * Volume = # of moles * Temperature (absolute) * universal_const I still do not get why do you guys bring the ideal gas law into the discussion. It has no effect on the temperature. Stephan-Boltzmann has no reference to the ideal gas law.
03-01-2021 20:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Xadoman wrote:I still do not get why do you guys bring the ideal gas law into the discussion. It has no effect on the temperature. Do you have any idea why the Temperature term is in the Ideal Gas law? Pressure * Volume = #moles * Temperature (absolute) * universal_const[/quote] [hint: all of the other components affect the temperature] Xadoman wrote: Stephan-Boltzmann has no reference to the ideal gas law. Correct, nor vice-cersa. . 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
03-01-2021 20:55
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Lets say I have two containers of CO2 in the garage . One is at 100 bar pressure and the other is at 200 bar pressure. What is the difference? Both should be at the same temperature. hint: all of the other components affect the temperature In my opinion only the energy from the sun is relevant. Edited on 03-01-2021 21:05
03-01-2021 21:03
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: Lets say I have two containers of CO2 in the garage . One is at 100 bar pressure and the other is at 200 bar pressure. What is the difference? Both should be at the same temperature. Temperature is actually based on the number of collisions in a given volume of space. Heat is the flow of energy and temperature is the flow of energy in that volume of space. With thermodynamics, eventually both containers because they're in your garage will equalize.
04-01-2021 00:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	James___ wrote:Temperature is actually based on the number of collisions in a given volume of space. When you use the words "based on" you are not referring therefore to temperature but to the measure of the temperature. The temperature of matter is the amount of thermal energy that it has. However we cannot examine the molecules of matter for their thermal energy content. So if we wish to measure the amount of thermal energy in a body of matter then the best we can do is to draw statistical inferences based on a very indirect measure, i.e. one of collisions of those molecules at one point in space. Ergo, the best measure we can presently make of thermal energy in matter is by measuring collisions and trusting in the 2nd law of thermodynamics to properly drive a measuring device. James___ wrote: Heat is the flow of energy and temperature is the flow of energy in that volume of space. No. You are correct that heat is an energy flow. Temperature is a quantity, specifically an approximation of a thermal energy average within an amount of matter. . 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
04-01-2021 02:49
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I will keep it simple.energy comes in from the sun.energy leaves the planet.CO2 affects the energy leaving the planet.There is no additional energy being created its already there.I claim the effect is miniscule.The whole warming theory lined up with the planet warming a bit as recorded at stations and an increase in CO2 was found to be the culprit then of course all the modelling developed a runaway warming and the destruction of mankind.Its been warmer before and it will probably cool again.It happens again the amount is miniscule how does .9 degree melt ice at -45_-75.None of the supposed disasters have happened.Feel free to write RQAA and how nothing can be measured.I have a hand built coolbox that has a thermometer in it and the front is chains hanging to stop flies.It has no motor and has been in the same place since we moved here.If I had recorded the temperature every hour for the last 20 years and it was now warmer than before I can say its warmer.You can say in the box but the box is in the same place and open to the air.I Jack Hughs you and ITN of making the laws fit your own theory

04-01-2021 03:01
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Too bad I never got to meet Hank. He says it all. "The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered" - Hank
04-01-2021 03:58
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]James___ wrote:Temperature is actually based on the number of collisions in a given volume of space. When you use the words "based on" you are not referring therefore to temperature but to the measure of the temperature. The temperature of matter is the amount of thermal energy that it has. However we cannot examine the molecules of matter for their thermal energy content. So if we wish to measure the amount of thermal energy in a body of matter then the best we can do is to draw statistical inferences based on a very indirect measure, i.e. one of collisions of those molecules at one point in space. Ergo, the best measure we can presently make of thermal energy in matter is by measuring collisions and trusting in the 2nd law of thermodynamics to properly drive a measuring device. IBDNM, I've noticed that the parameters which one posts in this forum has changed. Needless to say, all results are not valid. Edited on 04-01-2021 04:00
04-01-2021 05:39
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	ITN wrote ... right, the UV light is slowed ... to something below the speed of light . Did I get that right? No instead of the energy radiating to space it is reflected off the carbon molecule and scattered in 360 degree.Only some spectrums of UV light
04-01-2021 05:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: ITN wrote ... right, the UV light is slowed ... to something below the speed of light . Did I get that right? No instead of the energy radiating to space it is reflected off the carbon molecule and scattered in 360 degree.Only some spectrums of UV light And now you're agreeing with the basic premise of global warming. @Duncan61, this means we can't be friends. You agreed with "them". Edited on 04-01-2021 05:45
04-01-2021 05:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: ITN I have kind of set you up as I copied and pasted the Stefan Bltzmann law and you are saying its wrong. Nope. You are adding terms to the equation. You can't do that. duncan61 wrote: IBDM I am not claiming energy is being created from nothing. Yes you are. duncan61 wrote: The energy is coming from the sun.The atmosphere affects the planets temperature.Changing the atmosphere changes the temperature. You can't create energy from nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot reduce entropy in any system. duncan61 wrote: My personal claim which is in line with the scientist I have faith in through observing their work is it is not making a lot of difference and there are too many other variables to consider. Appeal to complexity fallacy. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is what it is. There are no additional terms. [quote]duncan61 wrote: Do either of you know a scientist whos work you accept or is everyone on the planet wrong except you 2.This is a debate forum so lets have at it [/quote Science is not a scientist. It is not people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. 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
04-01-2021 06:17
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote: ITN I have kind of set you up as I copied and pasted the Stefan Bltzmann law and you are saying its wrong. Nope. You are adding terms to the equation. You can't do that. duncan61 wrote: IBDM I am not claiming energy is being created from nothing. Yes you are. duncan61 wrote: The energy is coming from the sun.The atmosphere affects the planets temperature.Changing the atmosphere changes the temperature. You can't create energy from nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot reduce entropy in any system. duncan61 wrote: My personal claim which is in line with the scientist I have faith in through observing their work is it is not making a lot of difference and there are too many other variables to consider. Appeal to complexity fallacy. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is what it is. There are no additional terms. duncan61 wrote: Do either of you know a scientist whos work you accept or is everyone on the planet wrong except you 2.This is a debate forum so lets have at it [/quote Science is not a scientist. It is not people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Had to stop a country song: what were we thinking;? Just not enough alcohol to kill this mood. The objective is in reality non-linear thought. Linear thought is based on a subjective analysis of response and a non-response. To subjugate such theory, a response is required. You can either accept or deny my intentions. Only you idiots could kill a good country song. God, you guys are disgusting. Edited on 04-01-2021 06:35
04-01-2021 06:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Xadoman wrote: Lets say I have two containers of CO2 in the garage . One is at 100 bar pressure and the other is at 200 bar pressure. What is the difference? Both should be at the same temperature. hint: all of the other components affect the temperature In my opinion only the energy from the sun is relevant. Correct. I have containers of CO2 in my garage. I also have them at the airport. 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
04-01-2021 06:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: Lets say I have two containers of CO2 in the garage . One is at 100 bar pressure and the other is at 200 bar pressure. What is the difference? Both should be at the same temperature. Temperature is actually based on the number of collisions in a given volume of space. Heat is the flow of energy and temperature is the flow of energy in that volume of space. With thermodynamics, eventually both containers because they're in your garage will equalize. Temperature is not heat. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. 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
04-01-2021 06:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: I will keep it simple.energy comes in from the sun.energy leaves the planet.CO2 affects the energy leaving the planet. CO2 is incapable of trapping thermal energy, heat, or light. duncan61 wrote: There is no additional energy being created its already there. You cannot create additional energy out of nothing. You cannot reduce entropy in any system either. duncan61 wrote: I claim the effect is miniscule. The effect is zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. duncan61 wrote: The whole warming theory lined up with the planet warming a bit as recorded at stations A weather station is not global temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: and an increase in CO2 was found to be the culprit No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. duncan61 wrote: then of course all the modelling developed a runaway warming and the destruction of mankind.Its been warmer before and it will probably cool again. Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of the Earth has never been known. duncan61 wrote: It happens again the amount is miniscule how does .9 degree melt ice at -45_-75.None of the supposed disasters have happened. I disagree. We have snow storms. We have brush fires. We have hurricanes. We have tornadoes. What this has to do with 'climate change' (whatever THAT is) or 'global warming' (whatever THAT is), is a non-sequitur fallacy. duncan61 wrote: Feel free to write RQAA RQAA means Repetitious Question Already Answered. You didn't ask any questions. duncan61 wrote: and how nothing can be measured. Never said anything of the sort.. duncan61 wrote: I have a hand built coolbox that has a thermometer in it and the front is chains hanging to stop flies.It has no motor and has been in the same place since we moved here.If I had recorded the temperature every hour for the last 20 years and it was now warmer than before I can say its warmer.You can say in the box but the box is in the same place and open to the air. A box is not the world. duncan61 wrote: I Jack Hughs you and ITN of making the laws fit your own theory Neither of us wrote any of the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They simply are what they are. You are simply choosing to ignore them. 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
04-01-2021 06:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Spongy Iris wrote: Too bad I never got to meet Hank. He says it all. "The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered" - Hank The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't have a term for type of substance. Define 'greenhouse gas'. 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
04-01-2021 06:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]James___ wrote:Temperature is actually based on the number of collisions in a given volume of space. When you use the words "based on" you are not referring therefore to temperature but to the measure of the temperature. The temperature of matter is the amount of thermal energy that it has. WRONG. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is the AVERAGE thermal energy in a substance. 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
04-01-2021 07:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: ITN wrote ... right, the UV light is slowed ... to something below the speed of light . Did I get that right? No instead of the energy radiating to space it is reflected off the carbon molecule and scattered in 360 degree.Only some spectrums of UV light The Earth's temperature isn't sufficient to emit UV light. 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
04-01-2021 07:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: ITN wrote ... right, the UV light is slowed ... to something below the speed of light . Did I get that right? No instead of the energy radiating to space it is reflected off the carbon molecule and scattered in 360 degree.Only some spectrums of UV light And now you're agreeing with the basic premise of global warming. @Duncan61, this means we can't be friends. You agreed with "them". Define 'global warming'. 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
04-01-2021 09:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	duncan61 wrote:I will keep it simple.energy comes in from the sun.energy leaves the planet.CO2 affects the energy leaving the planet I will keep this simple. CO2 does not do that because CO2 cannot do that. duncan61 wrote:There is no additional energy being created I know there isn't ... because that's a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But then we have you and your WACKY claim of an increase in temperature ... all because of the mere existence of CO2. Then you claim that CO2 is performing magickal miracles and you won't divulge the secret. Start accounting for the additional energy that is increasing the temperature or admit that you are not claiming ANY increase in temperature. I won't waste my time on your nonsense until you do. duncan61 wrote:I claim the effect is miniscule. ... then start accounting for the miniscule amount of energy that is being created out of nothing or acknowledge that there isn't ANY temperature increase. duncan61 wrote: an increase in CO2 was found to be the culprit Nope. This was never "found" ... and avoid the passive voice, it simply gets your arguments dismissed. . 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
04-01-2021 12:18
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Duncan61, the energy that is absorbed from the sun by the body must be the same with the energy that leaves the body. If you say that the CO2 causes the energy that leaves the body to be higher than the energy it absorbes, then clearly it is wrong. Tmiddles claims that the Venus emits more that a theoretical blackbody that absorbs from the sun and says the culprit is the CO2 that has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Basically it means that there is a body that you heat with for example 100 watt heater and the body starts to emit 150 watt out of itself. As you can see it is wrong, only common sense is needed to understand it. Even a grandmother could understand it.

04-01-2021 19:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: Duncan61, the energy that is absorbed from the sun by the body must be the same with the energy that leaves the body. If you say that the CO2 causes the energy that leaves the body to be higher than the energy it absorbes, then clearly it is wrong. Tmiddles claims that the Venus emits more that a theoretical blackbody that absorbs from the sun and says the culprit is the CO2 that has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Basically it means that there is a body that you heat with for example 100 watt heater and the body starts to emit 150 watt out of itself. As you can see it is wrong, only common sense is needed to understand it. Even a grandmother could understand it. Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? Trump seems to have crossed a line when it comes to election fraud. A recorded phone conversation is what? With Republicans, It's okay because it's about staying in power. And once out of office, he should be prosecuted. Anymore the Republican party seems to be more and more like China's political party. And Mitch is rich because of China. Hopefully GOP!!!! Edited on 04-01-2021 19:22
04-01-2021 20:03
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: Duncan61, the energy that is absorbed from the sun by the body must be the same with the energy that leaves the body. If you say that the CO2 causes the energy that leaves the body to be higher than the energy it absorbes, then clearly it is wrong. Tmiddles claims that the Venus emits more that a theoretical blackbody that absorbs from the sun and says the culprit is the CO2 that has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Basically it means that there is a body that you heat with for example 100 watt heater and the body starts to emit 150 watt out of itself. As you can see it is wrong, only common sense is needed to understand it. Even a grandmother could understand it. Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? It will be warmer inside of the car with the windows closed (with the Sun shining on it). What you are describing is the windows acting as a coupling reducer between the air inside of the car's cabin and the outside air. Given enough time (after the sun stops shining on the car), the air inside of the car's cabin will return to the temperature of the outside air, even with keeping the windows closed. James___ wrote: Trump seems to have crossed a line when it comes to election fraud. A recorded phone conversation is what? With Republicans, It's okay because it's about staying in power. And once out of office, he should be prosecuted. Anymore the Republican party seems to be more and more like China's political party. And Mitch is rich because of China. Hopefully GOP!!!! Mitch has close ties to China. He is part of the problem. Edited on 04-01-2021 20:04
04-01-2021 21:00
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? Is space everything is about radiance. If a body gets certain energy per second then it also must radiate that certain energy per second. If you get 100 joule per second (100w)than you can give out no more than 100 joule per second. If you get 100 joule per second and give out 150 joule per second then there must be an additional energy source. The earth has a molten core that somewhat is an additional energy source but I am not sure how much it affects overall temperature. In case of Venus it affects a lot, causing temperatures that could melt lead. The energy from only the sun could not melt a lead on Venus. Edited on 04-01-2021 21:03
04-01-2021 21:00
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	gfm7175 wrote: Mitch has close ties to China. He is part of the problem. Amen. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
04-01-2021 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: Duncan61, the energy that is absorbed from the sun by the body must be the same with the energy that leaves the body. If you say that the CO2 causes the energy that leaves the body to be higher than the energy it absorbes, then clearly it is wrong. Tmiddles claims that the Venus emits more that a theoretical blackbody that absorbs from the sun and says the culprit is the CO2 that has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Basically it means that there is a body that you heat with for example 100 watt heater and the body starts to emit 150 watt out of itself. As you can see it is wrong, only common sense is needed to understand it. Even a grandmother could understand it. Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Incompatible units. James___ wrote: Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? All the energy absorbed in a car with the windows closed is dissipated away again. James___ wrote: Trump seems to have crossed a line when it comes to election fraud. Nope. The Secretary of State and the Governor of Georgia certainly have, though. James___ wrote: A recorded phone conversation is what? A recorded phone conversation. Nothing else. James___ wrote: With Republicans, It's okay because it's about staying in power. No, it's okay. James___ wrote: And once out of office, he should be prosecuted. For what crime? YAVC. James___ wrote: Anymore the Republican party seems to be more and more like China's political party. And Mitch is rich because of China. Hopefully GOP!!!! China wants Democrats in office. 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
04-01-2021 22:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Xadoman wrote: Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? Is space everything is about radiance. If a body gets certain energy per second then it also must radiate that certain energy per second. If you get 100 joule per second (100w)than you can give out no more than 100 joule per second. If you get 100 joule per second and give out 150 joule per second then there must be an additional energy source. The earth has a molten core that somewhat is an additional energy source but I am not sure how much it affects overall temperature. In case of Venus it affects a lot, causing temperatures that could melt lead. The energy from only the sun could not melt a lead on Venus. The cores of neither planet are not heated because of CO2. 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
04-01-2021 23:56
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? Is space everything is about radiance. If a body gets certain energy per second then it also must radiate that certain energy per second. If you get 100 joule per second (100w)than you can give out no more than 100 joule per second. If you get 100 joule per second and give out 150 joule per second then there must be an additional energy source. The earth has a molten core that somewhat is an additional energy source but I am not sure how much it affects overall temperature. In case of Venus it affects a lot, causing temperatures that could melt lead. The energy from only the sun could not melt a lead on Venus. What's often overlooked about Venus is it's atmospheric pressure. It's about 93 times greater than the Earth's.
05-01-2021 00:33
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? Is space everything is about radiance. If a body gets certain energy per second then it also must radiate that certain energy per second. If you get 100 joule per second (100w)than you can give out no more than 100 joule per second. If you get 100 joule per second and give out 150 joule per second then there must be an additional energy source. The earth has a molten core that somewhat is an additional energy source but I am not sure how much it affects overall temperature. In case of Venus it affects a lot, causing temperatures that could melt lead. The energy from only the sun could not melt a lead on Venus. What's often overlooked about Venus is it's atmospheric pressure. It's about 93 times greater than the Earth's. It has no effect on temperature. A container of CO2 could be under 200 bars of pressure but it will not melt lead if you touch it.
05-01-2021 00:57
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: Um, actually if heated by a 100 watt lamp per your example, the environment would have 150 watts of energy. Like when the Sun shines on a car in the summer. Will it be hotter if the windows are closed? Is space everything is about radiance. If a body gets certain energy per second then it also must radiate that certain energy per second. If you get 100 joule per second (100w)than you can give out no more than 100 joule per second. If you get 100 joule per second and give out 150 joule per second then there must be an additional energy source. The earth has a molten core that somewhat is an additional energy source but I am not sure how much it affects overall temperature. In case of Venus it affects a lot, causing temperatures that could melt lead. The energy from only the sun could not melt a lead on Venus. What's often overlooked about Venus is it's atmospheric pressure. It's about 93 times greater than the Earth's. It has no effect on temperature. A container of CO2 could be under 200 bars of pressure but it will not melt lead if you touch it. This is on Earth. If the CO2 on Venus is a gas which they say it is, shouldn't its atmosphere expand? Attached image: Edited on 05-01-2021 01:01
05-01-2021 01:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Xadoman wrote: Lets say I have two containers of CO2 in the garage . One is at 100 bar pressure and the other is at 200 bar pressure. What is the difference? Both should be at the same temperature. I apologize for the delay on this. I read right over it and missed it. Xadoman, you are getting wrapped around the axle over a simple conflation error. The quick answer is "Yes, of course the two CO2 containers will be at the same temperature." The key here is that under identical conditions, when both CO2 containers were filled, the CO2 in the container that was filled to 200 bar achieved a higher temperature initially compared to the other container that was only filled to 100 bar. Both subsequently cooled to the ambient garage temperature through blackbody radiation and conduction. To eliminate any confusion you might have, we need to distinguish between "change events" and "equilibrium." Change events occur and break equilibrium while the 2nd law of thermodynamics draws everything to equilibrium. In the case of your CO2 containers. They are both in equilibrium. In fact, I would take the opportunity to reiterate what Into the Night has quite correctly been emphasizing recently, that your CO2 container example is the spitting definition of the 0th law of thermodynamics, i.e. both containers are in thermal equilibrium with the garage therfore they both must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. But what happens when there is a change event? You were asking how the Ideal Gas law fits into this. Suppose you were to release some of the CO2 from the 200-bar container? What would happen to its temperature immediately before the 2nd law of thermodynamics returns it to the ambient temperature of the garage? This change event is governed by the Ideal Gas law. Returning our attention to the temperature change of CO2 when it is released from the container, I would like to point out that this is why you can boil liquid water until it freezes solid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glLPMXq6yc0&t=1m32s In the case of thermal energy and black body science, the temperatures of bodies of matter always move towards an equilibrium temperature and remain there once they reach it. If you provide a body with an energy source, e.g. the sun, then the body will reach a point of equilibrium and the body's (average) temperature will not change until another change event occurs that causes a change in temperature. A body that has absolutely no energy source will move towards absolute zero by radiating energy according to Stefan-Boltzmann. What change events can occur with respect to the earth's temperature? You are correct that those change effects are not governed by the Ideal Gas law but are instead governed by black body science. Since earth is surrounded by a vacuum, conduction is also precluded. Only changes in the quantity (Power) of energy absorbed by the earth can affect the earth's average temperature. This, of course, precludes any changes in earth's atmospheric composition from somehow also being any sort of change event. What can cause the quantity of energy (Power) absorbed by the earth to change? Two things: 1) a change in the Power output of the sun and 2) a change in the distance of the earth from the sun. Of course these things happen and when they do the earth is momentarily out of equilbrium ... because it now has a new equilibrium temperature towards which it is moving, and once there it will remain there until another change event gives it a new equilibrium temperature towards which it will move. The earth's equilibrium temperature is constantly fluctuating in non-discernible ways due to earth's eliptical orbit and the sun's randomly erratic and totally undifferentiable radiance function. Each such change is a change event that is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann. Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. . 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

Page 1 of 6

Join the debate stefan boltzmann:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law	56	10-05-2023 15:46
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank	17	11-06-2020 16:22
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law	743	22-11-2019 04:54
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface	20	20-10-2019 23:41
Stefan-Boltzmann and the Botlzmann Constant	83	12-10-2018 20:51