Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface

Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface17-10-2019 21:26
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	For the skeptics or realists, is this true? https://principia-scientific.org/global-warming-alarmists-misuse-stefan-boltzmann-law-non-vacuum-interface/ I'm going to post the content below so no one has to click on a link if you want to requote it. One of the significant errors commonly made by the advocates of catastrophic man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions is the claim by the settled science proclaimers that radiation from a non-vacuum interface is the same as radiation from a surface into a vacuum. This error in the physics of radiation from the Earth's surface results in an exaggeration of the cooling radiation emitted from the Earth's surface and contributes to them positing a hugely larger back-radiation from greenhouse gases than can actually occur. P = ε σ A T4 I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface. In the case of the Earth's surface, water is evaporated at the surface with a very substantial cooling effect. In addition, air molecules strike the surface and carry away heat gained in collisions with the surface. Despite these obvious problems with an unchanged surface emission of radiant energy into the atmosphere compared to that into a vacuum, the settled science proclaimers have in many cases steadfastly said that I am wrong. OK, so I will try to explain this in greater detail in this post. Atoms in solid materials such as in soil and rock, are held at distances from one another which are determined by a minimum in the potential energy. The atoms can only be forced closer with the expenditure of energy and they can only be pulled further apart with the expenditure of energy. An electron in orbit about a nucleus will also have motion constrained by a potential energy well. The greater the temperature, the more an atom may move near the potential energy minimum and the more the electron can move in the nucleus-electron potential well. In both cases, positive and negative charges will move with respect to one another. When positive and negative charges are close to one another, but have offset centers of charge, they form a dipole. Because the displacement movements of the charges in the dipoles are small for the temperatures near the Earth's surface, the results are dipole charges with an oscillating distance between them similar to a mass hanging from a spring in small motion. These are harmonic oscillators and they emit radiant energy. While the interatomic potential energy wells in a liquid are broader than those in a solid material, the same principle applies to liquids. Of course, in either a solid or a liquid, atoms have several nearest neighbors or near neighbors. Multiple harmonic oscillators are interacting. If a harmonic oscillator in a vacuum is set into motion by a heating process and the heat source is removed, the harmonic oscillation will lose strength as it emits energy into a strengthening radiant energy field. Conversely, an increase in the harmonic oscillation caused by an electromagnetic field, such as the solar insolation acting on the Earth's surface, will decrease the energy in the radiation field. A cooling surface radiating energy will have decreased harmonic oscillator displacements as it pours energy into the electromagnetic field. A surface near 300K will generate infra-red and microwave radiation, though almost all of the energy given off will be in the infra-red radiation range. The generation of a radiant energy field decreases the kinetic energy of the harmonic oscillators in the surface. There is Conservation of Energy between the harmonic oscillators and the electromagnetic field which is generated. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us how much energy is radiated per unit time into the electromagnetic field of the vacuum: P = ε σ A T4, where P is the power, ε is the emissivity and characteristic of the surface, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, A is the surface area of the radiating material, and T is its temperature in Kelvin. We must remember however that the radiated energy comes from harmonic oscillators. If the surface is a water surface or if it is a soil or a plant with water content and water is evaporated from the surface, we must remember that the energy required to change water from its liquid to its vapor form has to come from somewhere. The Earth's surface does have considerable water evaporating from it and the latent heat of vaporization for water is very high. Where does this energy come from? Well it comes from the kinetic energy of the oscillating dipoles at temperatures near the average Earth temperature of 288K. As the warm surface materials evaporate water, their harmonic oscillators lose kinetic energy and settle more towards their potential minima except insofar as the energy is replaced by more solar insolation or by heat flow from the subsurface. The oscillation displacements decrease. There is a conservation of energy between the harmonic oscillators and the energy used to evaporate the water. The same is true when the harmonic oscillators warm air molecules that strike the Earth's surface. Those air molecules take away some of the kinetic energy of the harmonic oscillators. Consequently, the harmonic oscillators that generate radiation into vacuum will not be able to generate as much radiant energy into the atmosphere. The presence of contacting liquid water and air molecule collisions with the surface remove energy from the harmonic oscillators that generate the radiation field. Consequently, the amount of infra-red and microwave energy emitted from the surface will be less than if that surface were radiating into vacuum. It has to be so because energy is conserved. This is why it is clear that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us the maximum energy that can be obtained from a warm surface of material. At a vacuum interface, that energy given off will be entirely radiant energy and it will all go into strengthening the electromagnetic field. The Earth's surface however is taking the same kinetic energy from its many harmonic oscillators and it is partitioning that energy among the processes of generating water vapor, warming colliding air molecules, and emitting radiant energy. The amplitude of the oscillation in the harmonic oscillators decreases as they pour energy into these three loss mechanisms. Energy is thus conserved. The Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget used so prominently in the UN IPCC 4th Report of 2007 made the mistake of not adjusting the Earth's surface radiation downward due to the evaporation of water and the warming of air. Here is that diagram: [img]https://i1.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kt-budget.jpg?resize=709%2C419&ssl=1[/img] kt-budget It is claimed in this diagram that the Earth's surface at 288K emits 390 W/m2 or 114% of the average power incident at the top of the atmosphere and 2.32 times the power absorbed by the surface from solar insolation. The 390 W/m2 of surface radiated energy assumes that the Earth's surface is a black body radiator emitting the same energy it would into vacuum into the atmosphere. As I have explained in my post The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases, the Earth's surface is not a black body radiator. It does not have an emissivity of one as a black body radiator does. It has an emissivity of less than 0.5. But even if it were a black body radiator, energy conservation would require that the emitted radiant energy be (390 – 78 – 24) W/m2 or 288 W/m2 due to subtracting the energy put into evaporation and thermals. This is 112 W/m2 less than they claim is emitted from the surface. They then make the further mistake of believing that most of that exaggerated surface emitted radiant energy is returned to the surface by greenhouse gases. This makes up much of the 324 W/m2 they claim is absorbed by the surface after it had been absorbed in the atmosphere first. The back radiation energy is thus exaggerated hugely by a combination of errors. Among the errors are: The belief that the Earth's surface is a black body radiator with emissivity 1. The violation of the Conservation of Energy by failure to subtract the energy used to cause evaporation and to generate thermals from the energy that would be emitted as radiant energy into vacuum. The failure to understand the consequences of the high gas molecule collision rates near the surface and the very short mean free path of infra-red radiation which can be absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide, as well as their rarity among air molecules. In the lower troposphere, energy is almost entirely transported upward. The most recent Earth Energy Budget posted by NASA makes the same errors: [img]https://i1.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/nasa.jpg?resize=720%2C480&ssl=1[/img] This is an incredible comedy of errors for science that has been funded by about $140 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money. It is a comedy of errors with very tragic consequences. The United States Government [ed: pre-President trump] are still calling for the destruction of the American economy and the lowering of our standard of living for the supposed purpose of saving the world from catastrophic man-made global warming due to the use of fossil fuels. This disastrous crusade is pursued in the name of this childishly wrong "settled" science. Sorry it didn't display the charts but they're the ones everyone has seen. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
18-10-2019 14:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote: For the skeptics or realists, is this true? https://principia-scientific.org/global-warming-alarmists-misuse-stefan-boltzmann-law-non-vacuum-interface/ Great find Harry. This is a really qualified scientist from a practical standpoint: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-r-anderson-ph-d-068652/ Hey Verner! Check it out. It's interesting. I'm not well qualified but my understanding is that he's claiming the amount of radiance from the ground is overstated. Since the standard green house effect is a ping pong from ground to air and back again, the amount of radiance from the ground is key. He's saying that more thermal energy is cycling back out via evaporation, conduction and so on. I am going to look at him some more but wanted to say I think this is good stuff. I don't get i yet. The title makes sense, that in a vacuum with no atmosphere it would be 100% radiance up from the ground, and that with an atmosphere in the way you have conduction and evaporation. The models he's saying are wrong include conduction and evaporation and I don't follow yet how he's saying they got it wrong.
18-10-2019 20:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote: For the skeptics or realists, is this true? https://principia-scientific.org/global-warming-alarmists-misuse-stefan-boltzmann-law-non-vacuum-interface/ Great find Harry. This is a really qualified scientist from a practical standpoint: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-r-anderson-ph-d-068652/ Hey Verner! Check it out. It's interesting. I'm not well qualified but my understanding is that he's claiming the amount of radiance from the ground is overstated. Since the standard green house effect is a ping pong from ground to air and back again, * You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy in any system. By 'trapping' photons in this way, you are essentially attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. Photons are not superballs, BB's, ping pong balls, or anything else that 'bounces'. Real balls don't bounce forever, and when photons are absorbed, they are utterly destroyed. You are doing the equivalent of trying to make a ball bounce forever between a 'ceiling' of some magickal properties, and the ground, all the while adding more and more balls trapped in this way. * You cannot reduce the radiance of a body and increase its temperature at the same time. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is clear. r = C * e * t^4. There is no frequency term. All bodies emit according to this law...everywhere...all the time, each according to the emissivity of that body. There is no perfect ideal emitter. There is no perfect ideal reflector. All bodies are somewhere in between. The key point here is that when you are preventing photons from leaving Earth (by 'trapping' them), you are reducing the radiance of Earth. This would mean necessarily that Earth is cooling. This 'trapping' argument builds a paradox that violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. tmiddles wrote: the amount of radiance from the ground is key. * You cannot compare two systems as if they are the same system. In both thermodynamics and in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the boundaries of the system MUST remain consistent. To compare two systems as if they were one is the same as a false equivalence fallacy. Moving the goalposts in this way is a favorite tactic of people, like you, that deny thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is a religious belief. Just discarding these laws is to discard what science is. Since you are using this to try to prove your religion, you are making a circular argument fallacy, or fundamentalism. tmiddles wrote: The models he's saying are wrong include conduction and evaporation and I don't follow yet how he's saying they got it wrong. Computer models and the programs that manipulate them are not data. They are simply numbers spat out by the computer that some programmers told them to spit out. They began with random numbers, and the result is random numbers. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To determine this constant for Earth, you would first have to accurately know the temperature of the Earth. You also have to make your measurements outside of any source of external light (such as the nearby Sun). Then, and only then, can you compare your measurements to an ideal black body of the same temperature. That, and only that, will give you an emissivity value. It is a measured constant. To measure any change in this value, the entire measurement procedure must be repeated again. This constant is only good for that moment in time. The measurement procedure required is not available for measuring Earth's emissivity. Earth cannot be isolated from the effects of the nearby Sun, and the temperature of Earth is unknown. Simulations in computers is often just another word for 'computer game'. It's entertainment value, nothing more. It has nothing to do with producing any useful data of global temperatures, precipitation patterns, global sea levels, etc. Those values MUST be measured, and it is not possible to measure any of 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
18-10-2019 22:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	Harry C wrote: For the skeptics or realists, is this true? The short answer is no. This article by Charles R. Anderson is entirely bogus. First, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct, i.e. P = ε * σ * A * T^4 ... but the opening assumption is incorrect: I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. Stefan-Boltzmann calculates the radiance, period, whether it's into a vacuum, into a jacket, into the earth's crust, whatever. The reason for the equation in the article, however, is to psychologically pummel the reader with phoney credibility that isn't there. Notice that the article imposes many conclusions onto the reader that don't have anything to do with what Stefan-Boltzmann calculates. Tell me, does this section of the article do anything for you? Does it add value in your eyes? Does it clarify the author's thesis statement? Atoms in solid materials such as in soil and rock, are held at distances from one another which are determined by a minimum in the potential energy. The atoms can only be forced closer with the expenditure of energy and they can only be pulled further apart with the expenditure of energy. An electron in orbit about a nucleus will also have motion constrained by a potential energy well. The greater the temperature, the more an atom may move near the potential energy minimum and the more the electron can move in the nucleus-electron potential well. In both cases, positive and negative charges will move with respect to one another. When positive and negative charges are close to one another, but have offset centers of charge, they form a dipole. Because the displacement movements of the charges in the dipoles are small for the temperatures near the Earth's surface, the results are dipole charges with an oscillating distance between them similar to a mass hanging from a spring in small motion. These are harmonic oscillators and they emit radiant energy. While the interatomic potential energy wells in a liquid are broader than those in a solid material, the same principle applies to liquids. Of course, in either a solid or a liquid, atoms have several nearest neighbors or near neighbors. Multiple harmonic oscillators are interacting. ... or could it be gibber-babble and you wouldn't know it? Does the above portion serve to make you say "Well, I guess the author is really smart because I can't follow this stuff so I should just presume that his conclusions are true"? Did you notice this part? Well it comes from the kinetic energy of the oscillating dipoles at temperatures near the average Earth temperature of 288K. [sarcasm] Well, I certainly won't question that! [/sarcasm] Then we get to the open denial of the very Stefan-Boltzmann equation that was posted: Consequently, the amount of infra-red and microwave energy emitted from the surface will be less than if that surface were radiating into vacuum. It has to be so because energy is conserved. The surface will radiate per its temperature alone, and that means that it will radiate the amount calculated by Stefan-Boltzmann whether it is into a vacuum, whether it is into an atmosphere, whether it is into an ocean, whether it is into your toes in the sand, ... whatever. . 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
18-10-2019 23:18
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Hi Harry, this forum is toxic. At the same time I have tried explaining how eбAt^4 relates to everything. They're not that well versed in physics. There are 2 things that I do think matters. As far as our atmosphere goes, the rate of entropy is relative to the number of gas molecules moving and absorbing heat. I think this is why scientists say IR when all that might be is solar radiation refracted in the ionosphere. The 2nd thing is I tend to believe that energy in our atmosphere is conserved. This gets into astrophysics which in our atmosphere is pretty much ignored. Look at the temperatures of the mesopause and the tropopause. Why are there 2 cold layers in our atmosphere? That's astrophysics. Atmospheric chemistry doesn't explain it except to say that highly efficient layers in our atmosphere are quite cold. So what allows for superconductivity? I mean for something to radiate such a small amount of heat, it would make computers, electric motors that much more efficient. The rings on Saturn might be like the layers in our atmosphere and the Van Allen radiation belts. Saturn is a lot further away from the Sun than our planet is. https://images.app.goo.gl/EYjYcqvUWbNNN4aV9 Edited on 18-10-2019 23:32

19-10-2019 00:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James___ wrote: Hi Harry, this forum is toxic. At the same time I have tried explaining how eбAt^4 relates to everything. They're not that well versed in physics. There are 2 things that I do think matters. As far as our atmosphere goes, the rate of entropy is relative to the number of gas molecules moving and absorbing heat. I think this is why scientists say IR when all that might be is solar radiation refracted in the ionosphere. The 2nd thing is I tend to believe that energy in our atmosphere is conserved. This gets into astrophysics which in our atmosphere is pretty much ignored. Look at the temperatures of the mesopause and the tropopause. Why are there 2 cold layers in our atmosphere? That's astrophysics. Atmospheric chemistry doesn't explain it except to say that highly efficient layers in our atmosphere are quite cold. So what allows for superconductivity? I mean for something to radiate such a small amount of heat, it would make computers, electric motors that much more efficient. The rings on Saturn might be like the layers in our atmosphere and the Van Allen radiation belts. Saturn is a lot further away from the Sun than our planet is. https://images.app.goo.gl/EYjYcqvUWbNNN4aV9 Word salad. I don't see a connected thought in this entire post. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-10-2019 13:12
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Harry, congratulations on stopping listening to people who tell you the earth is flat, you have found something that sounds sciencey however the author seems to have a political axe to grind. I think if there was any merit and not a rehash of old talking points we would know about it and he would be publishing in Nature not a board for any paper that is uploaded.
19-10-2019 16:20
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: Tell me, does this section of the article do anything for you? Does it add value in your eyes? Does it clarify the author's thesis statement? Atoms in solid materials such as in soil and rock, are held at distances from one another which are determined by a minimum in the potential energy. The atoms can only be forced closer with the expenditure of energy and they can only be pulled further apart with the expenditure of energy. An electron in orbit about a nucleus will also have motion constrained by a potential energy well. The greater the temperature, the more an atom may move near the potential energy minimum and the more the electron can move in the nucleus-electron potential well. In both cases, positive and negative charges will move with respect to one another. When positive and negative charges are close to one another, but have offset centers of charge, they form a dipole. Because the displacement movements of the charges in the dipoles are small for the temperatures near the Earth's surface, the results are dipole charges with an oscillating distance between them similar to a mass hanging from a spring in small motion. These are harmonic oscillators and they emit radiant energy. While the interatomic potential energy wells in a liquid are broader than those in a solid material, the same principle applies to liquids. Of course, in either a solid or a liquid, atoms have several nearest neighbors or near neighbors. Multiple harmonic oscillators are interacting. ... or could it be gibber-babble and you wouldn't know it? Does the above portion serve to make you say "Well, I guess the author is really smart because I can't follow this stuff so I should just presume that his conclusions are true"? I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I'm looking for information that explains the difference between what 'alarmists' and 'skeptics' say happens. IBdaMann wrote: Did you notice this part? Well it comes from the kinetic energy of the oscillating dipoles at temperatures near the average Earth temperature of 288K. [sarcasm] Well, I certainly won't question that! [/sarcasm] Then we get to the open denial of the very Stefan-Boltzmann equation that was posted: Consequently, the amount of infra-red and microwave energy emitted from the surface will be less than if that surface were radiating into vacuum. It has to be so because energy is conserved. The surface will radiate per its temperature alone, and that means that it will radiate the amount calculated by Stefan-Boltzmann whether it is into a vacuum, whether it is into an atmosphere, whether it is into an ocean, whether it is into your toes in the sand, ... whatever. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands your and ITN's steadfast position that the claimed increase in average global temperatures due to increased CO2 cannot happen because of the immutable laws of Physics. However if it was so obvious one would think there would not be the dispute that there is. Yet you only tell us what can't be done. OK, got that. But quit disrupting the rest of us for trying to figure out what is happening. Try adding some dimension to the conversation. Otherwise you're not representing yourselves very intelligently. I would gladly proselytize against Global Warming if someone could help me understand the fundamentals. There has to be someone somewhere that can relate the difference between what some say CO2 in the atmosphere does do that others say it doesn't. Perhaps I'm stupid but this seems to be the key to the dispute.
19-10-2019 16:56
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here.
20-10-2019 03:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	spot wrote: I think if there was any merit and not a rehash of old talking points we would know about it... How, exactly, would you just "know" information? Would that be via the same method that tmiddles use, i.e. by simply declaring that it is "what we know"? spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? Yeah, he won't learn much in Wikipedia, owing to it being replete with errors. Instead of learning anything he will most likely just end up absorbing misinformation. . 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 Edited on 20-10-2019 03:14
20-10-2019 03:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	Harry C wrote:I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I'm looking for information that explains the difference between what 'alarmists' and 'skeptics' say happens. That is entirely explained in The MANUAL: Warmizombie or Climate-Lemming: noun Colloquial term for believer in Climate Science, normally of such unbelievable strength of faith that no science, logic, math or any sort of reason can cause any reconsideration, and normally of such devotion that rigid solidarity and obedience to Climate Scientists is always maintained. The most prominent tenet of the warmizombie or Climate-lemming is the absolute certainty that Global Warming will ultimately defeat Climate, called the inevitable Climate "catastrophe" usually estimated to be around the end of the century ... or within twelve years (your mileage may vary), and that Climate will fall as a result of mankind's carbon sins helping Global Warming push Climate beyond "the tipping point." Skeptic: noun A member of the heretical sect of the Church of Global Warming called "Skeptics." A skeptic believes everything that other warmizombies and Climate-lemmings believe EXCEPT FOR the tenet of the inevitable Climate catastrophe. Skeptics have full faith that Climate will triumph in the end and they tend to not embrace the firebrand Marxist calls to tax everything that exists in this physical reality. They also do not believe that humanity is bringing Climate to her demise. This puts skeptics at odds with warmizombies and Climate-lemmings, normally in the area of public policy and law. Harry C wrote: However if it was so obvious one would think there would not be the dispute that there is. Incorrect. The debate exists despite it being so completely obvious. Purely political motives, and stupid people, keep the debate alive. I am tempted to put you in that category. Harry C wrote: But quit disrupting the rest of us for trying to figure out what is happening. OK, you convinced me. I'm officially putting you in the category of stupid people. You're an idiot who think he speaks for everybody else. Look, I'm going to post whatever I wish to post. I was previously trying to help you, but I see that you simply came here to be an ashsole, so I am going to tune my posts towards you a bit differently from now on. Harry C wrote:I would gladly proselytize against Global Warming if someone could help me understand the fundamentals. There are no "fundamentals" you flaming idiot. I thoroughly explained to you the religious nature of the Global Warming faith and you assured me that you read through The MANUAL so you have no excuse for being the dimwitted moron you are being on this subject. It's a religion. Either join the church or pick a different one. You have already professed your faith. ... and stop asking for more information if you know that you have insufficient aptitude to learn anything. Harry C wrote:There has to be someone somewhere that can relate the difference between what some say CO2 in the atmosphere does do that others say it doesn't. Perhaps I'm stupid but this seems to be the key to the dispute. Yes, you are stupid and that is not the key to the dispute. 1) You are OBVIOUSLY not smart enough to recognize a WACKY religion when it is right in front of you. 2) There is nothing to know in the area of physics. 3) Global Warming is nothing more than an imposition of extremely bad economics onto societies in order to give governments ever increasing power. Done. ... and stop disrupting sensible conversations the rest of us are having with your stupid religious pursuits. . 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
20-10-2019 05:41
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of carbon in our food. Plants only get carbon from CO2. Plants start dying at 170 ppm. Ideal levels of CO2 start at 700 ppm. I'd risk a couple of degrees warming, to see a greener world, and plentiful food. Sort of like the Garden of Eden, in the Book of Genesis. Capturing, and sequestering CO2, until we get back down to your estimated 280 ppm is scary, much scarier than the warming. Only 100 ppm between life and death on this planet isn't much margin of error. Check the Mauna Loa CO2 readings sometime, it takes a pretty good seasonal dip...
20-10-2019 05:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	HarveyH55 wrote: spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of carbon in our food. Plants only get carbon from CO2. Plants start dying at 170 ppm. Ideal levels of CO2 start at 700 ppm. I'd risk a couple of degrees warming, to see a greener world, and plentiful food. Sort of like the Garden of Eden, in the Book of Genesis. Capturing, and sequestering CO2, until we get back down to your estimated 280 ppm is scary, much scarier than the warming. Only 100 ppm between life and death on this planet isn't much margin of error. Check the Mauna Loa CO2 readings sometime, it takes a pretty good seasonal dip... Harvey, well said. I'm sure you can imagine how people like me feel knowing that there is no risk of "a couple of degrees warming." Oh, and plants aren't the only source of carbon in our food. Beef, for example, has a lot of protein which has carbon. How much carbon? Well, enough for this to be the chemical formula: RCH(NH2)COOH . 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
20-10-2019 12:04
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	HarveyH55 wrote: spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of carbon in our food. Plants only get carbon from CO2. Plants start dying at 170 ppm. Ideal levels of CO2 start at 700 ppm. I'd risk a couple of degrees warming, to see a greener world, and plentiful food. Sort of like the Garden of Eden, in the Book of Genesis. Capturing, and sequestering CO2, until we get back down to your estimated 280 ppm is scary, much scarier than the warming. Only 100 ppm between life and death on this planet isn't much margin of error. Check the Mauna Loa CO2 readings sometime, it takes a pretty good seasonal dip... Not many people even religious people think the book of Genesis is literally true. Yes CO2 is vital to life but it also has other properties I'm sure you are familiar with the argument I would make and I don't have the time or inclination to go through your post pointing out the errors and misrepresentation in it. If anyone is interested in learning I suggest asking people on this forum is a poor place to start. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-10-2019 12:04
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	HarveyH55 wrote: spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of carbon in our food. Plants only get carbon from CO2. Plants start dying at 170 ppm. Ideal levels of CO2 start at 700 ppm. I'd risk a couple of degrees warming, to see a greener world, and plentiful food. Sort of like the Garden of Eden, in the Book of Genesis. Capturing, and sequestering CO2, until we get back down to your estimated 280 ppm is scary, much scarier than the warming. Only 100 ppm between life and death on this planet isn't much margin of error. Check the Mauna Loa CO2 readings sometime, it takes a pretty good seasonal dip... Not many people even religious people think the book of Genesis is literally true. Yes CO2 is vital to life but it also has other properties I'm sure you are familiar with the argument I would make and I don't have the time or inclination to go through your post pointing out the errors and misrepresentation in it. If anyone is interested in learning I suggest asking people on this forum is a poor place to start. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

20-10-2019 17:44
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	spot wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of carbon in our food. Plants only get carbon from CO2. Plants start dying at 170 ppm. Ideal levels of CO2 start at 700 ppm. I'd risk a couple of degrees warming, to see a greener world, and plentiful food. Sort of like the Garden of Eden, in the Book of Genesis. Capturing, and sequestering CO2, until we get back down to your estimated 280 ppm is scary, much scarier than the warming. Only 100 ppm between life and death on this planet isn't much margin of error. Check the Mauna Loa CO2 readings sometime, it takes a pretty good seasonal dip... Not many people even religious people think the book of Genesis is literally true. Yes CO2 is vital to life but it also has other properties I'm sure you are familiar with the argument I would make and I don't have the time or inclination to go through your post pointing out the errors and misrepresentation in it. If anyone is interested in learning I suggest asking people on this forum is a poor place to start. What he doesn't understand is that Iron is vital for being able to breathe. That's what oxygen attaches to in the blood stream. Too much iron and you die. Too much CO2 and a person will die. It displaces oxygen. It seems that once CO2 goes over 1,000 ppm that adults will start experiencing problems. They'll complain of being drowsy. I think this would be a good enough reason to work to limiting CO2 emissions. If not, then as more countries build more power plants and become industrialized like the US, trees being burned in a poor carbon neutral policy, how high could CO2 levels get? https://www.indoordoctor.com/indoor-carbon-dioxide-levels-health/ Edited on 20-10-2019 17:51
20-10-2019 17:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	spot wrote: I don't have the time or inclination to go through your post pointing out the errors and misrepresentation in it. Just two would be fine. . 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
20-10-2019 17:55
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I'm looking for information that explains the difference between what 'alarmists' and 'skeptics' say happens. That is entirely explained in The MANUAL: Warmizombie or Climate-Lemming: noun Colloquial term for believer in Climate Science, normally of such unbelievable strength of faith that no science, logic, math or any sort of reason can cause any reconsideration, and normally of such devotion that rigid solidarity and obedience to Climate Scientists is always maintained. The most prominent tenet of the warmizombie or Climate-lemming is the absolute certainty that Global Warming will ultimately defeat Climate, called the inevitable Climate "catastrophe" usually estimated to be around the end of the century ... or within twelve years (your mileage may vary), and that Climate will fall as a result of mankind's carbon sins helping Global Warming push Climate beyond "the tipping point." Skeptic: noun A member of the heretical sect of the Church of Global Warming called "Skeptics." A skeptic believes everything that other warmizombies and Climate-lemmings believe EXCEPT FOR the tenet of the inevitable Climate catastrophe. Skeptics have full faith that Climate will triumph in the end and they tend to not embrace the firebrand Marxist calls to tax everything that exists in this physical reality. They also do not believe that humanity is bringing Climate to her demise. This puts skeptics at odds with warmizombies and Climate-lemmings, normally in the area of public policy and law. Harry C wrote: However if it was so obvious one would think there would not be the dispute that there is. Incorrect. The debate exists despite it being so completely obvious. Purely political motives, and stupid people, keep the debate alive. I am tempted to put you in that category. Harry C wrote: But quit disrupting the rest of us for trying to figure out what is happening. OK, you convinced me. I'm officially putting you in the category of stupid people. You're an idiot who think he speaks for everybody else. Look, I'm going to post whatever I wish to post. I was previously trying to help you, but I see that you simply came here to be an ashsole, so I am going to tune my posts towards you a bit differently from now on. Harry C wrote:I would gladly proselytize against Global Warming if someone could help me understand the fundamentals. There are no "fundamentals" you flaming idiot. I thoroughly explained to you the religious nature of the Global Warming faith and you assured me that you read through The MANUAL so you have no excuse for being the dimwitted moron you are being on this subject. It's a religion. Either join the church or pick a different one. You have already professed your faith. ... and stop asking for more information if you know that you have insufficient aptitude to learn anything. Harry C wrote:There has to be someone somewhere that can relate the difference between what some say CO2 in the atmosphere does do that others say it doesn't. Perhaps I'm stupid but this seems to be the key to the dispute. Yes, you are stupid and that is not the key to the dispute. 1) You are OBVIOUSLY not smart enough to recognize a WACKY religion when it is right in front of you. 2) There is nothing to know in the area of physics. 3) Global Warming is nothing more than an imposition of extremely bad economics onto societies in order to give governments ever increasing power. Done. ... and stop disrupting sensible conversations the rest of us are having with your stupid religious pursuits. . Again you don't disappoint with your total unwillingness, or is it inability to distill the climate dispute. You've got nothing for me and I can live being on your ignore list. It isn't going to change my quest. I guess you don't get around to debating very much. There is an essence to this dispute that the 'alarmist' are relying upon. You take the subject as there is no debate. So I have to ask, other than to bully people, why are you here? Don't worry, I don't expect a cogent and succinct answer. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
20-10-2019 23:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Tell me, does this section of the article do anything for you? Does it add value in your eyes? Does it clarify the author's thesis statement? Atoms in solid materials such as in soil and rock, are held at distances from one another which are determined by a minimum in the potential energy. The atoms can only be forced closer with the expenditure of energy and they can only be pulled further apart with the expenditure of energy. An electron in orbit about a nucleus will also have motion constrained by a potential energy well. The greater the temperature, the more an atom may move near the potential energy minimum and the more the electron can move in the nucleus-electron potential well. In both cases, positive and negative charges will move with respect to one another. When positive and negative charges are close to one another, but have offset centers of charge, they form a dipole. Because the displacement movements of the charges in the dipoles are small for the temperatures near the Earth's surface, the results are dipole charges with an oscillating distance between them similar to a mass hanging from a spring in small motion. These are harmonic oscillators and they emit radiant energy. While the interatomic potential energy wells in a liquid are broader than those in a solid material, the same principle applies to liquids. Of course, in either a solid or a liquid, atoms have several nearest neighbors or near neighbors. Multiple harmonic oscillators are interacting. ... or could it be gibber-babble and you wouldn't know it? Does the above portion serve to make you say "Well, I guess the author is really smart because I can't follow this stuff so I should just presume that his conclusions are true"? I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I'm looking for information that explains the difference between what 'alarmists' and 'skeptics' say happens. IBdaMann wrote: Did you notice this part? Well it comes from the kinetic energy of the oscillating dipoles at temperatures near the average Earth temperature of 288K. [sarcasm] Well, I certainly won't question that! [/sarcasm] Then we get to the open denial of the very Stefan-Boltzmann equation that was posted: Consequently, the amount of infra-red and microwave energy emitted from the surface will be less than if that surface were radiating into vacuum. It has to be so because energy is conserved. The surface will radiate per its temperature alone, and that means that it will radiate the amount calculated by Stefan-Boltzmann whether it is into a vacuum, whether it is into an atmosphere, whether it is into an ocean, whether it is into your toes in the sand, ... whatever. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands your and ITN's steadfast position that the claimed increase in average global temperatures due to increased CO2 cannot happen because of the immutable laws of Physics. However if it was so obvious one would think there would not be the dispute that there is. Yet you only tell us what can't be done. OK, got that. But quit disrupting the rest of us for trying to figure out what is happening. Try adding some dimension to the conversation. Otherwise you're not representing yourselves very intelligently. I would gladly proselytize against Global Warming if someone could help me understand the fundamentals. There has to be someone somewhere that can relate the difference between what some say CO2 in the atmosphere does do that others say it doesn't. Perhaps I'm stupid but this seems to be the key to the dispute. The dispute comes not as a result of physics, but as a result of religion denying science. There will always be religions that deny science. There is nothing happening, so there is nothing to disrupt. CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared. The surface of the Earth is generally warmer than the atmosphere, so the surface heats the atmosphere. The surface is cooled by this process. It can heat the atmosphere by conduction (the air is in contact with the surface, and air is in contact with air), or by radiance (emitting IR from the surface and heating certain gases). All CO2 does is provide just another way for the surface to heat the air, and be cooled in the process. The colder air cannot in turn heat the surface. Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Any model (such as 'greenhouse effect') ignores this, and attempts to construct a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. Further, CO2 actually conducts heat better than almost any other common gas in the atmosphere. It certainly can't act as a thermal insulator of any sort. Whatever CO2 absorbs is distributed to the other nearby gases in the atmosphere. ALL matter emits a radiance. The amount radiated is proportional to the temperature of that matter. That includes the surface, the CO2, the nitrogen, the oxygen, the water vapor, EVERYTHING. The surface is the warmest. It emits more than anything else. Most of the radiance of Earth comes directly from the surface. The atmosphere also radiates, but it's like a thin fog in comparison to what the surface radiates. 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
20-10-2019 23:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. Wikipedia is wrong, like usual. 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
20-10-2019 23:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: spot wrote: A dispute about what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Seriously why not look in Wikipedia if you want to know what it does? You won't learn much here. CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of carbon in our food. Plants only get carbon from CO2. Plants start dying at 170 ppm. Ideal levels of CO2 start at 700 ppm. I'd risk a couple of degrees warming, to see a greener world, and plentiful food. Sort of like the Garden of Eden, in the Book of Genesis. Capturing, and sequestering CO2, until we get back down to your estimated 280 ppm is scary, much scarier than the warming. Only 100 ppm between life and death on this planet isn't much margin of error. Check the Mauna Loa CO2 readings sometime, it takes a pretty good seasonal dip... Not many people even religious people think the book of Genesis is literally true. Argument from randU fallacy. You do not get to speak for what other people believe. You only get to speak for you. spot wrote: Yes CO2 is vital to life but it also has other properties Yes. It can absorb certain frequencies of IR light. The surface does emit that light, along with all the rest of the infrared it emits. It's just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. It is cooled in the process. CO2 cannot in turn heat the surface. No gas or vapor can, as long as it is colder than the surface. spot wrote: I'm sure you are familiar with the argument I would make and I don't have the time or inclination to go through your post pointing out the errors and misrepresentation in it. You have the time, and you have the inclination, you just don't have any valid arguments to counter the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. spot wrote: If anyone is interested in learning I suggest asking people on this forum is a poor place to start. The place to start is to learn these three laws. You can find them in other places besides this forum. 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

Join the debate Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface:

Threads	Replies	Last post
17 year old cyclist murdered, do not expect the law to investigate, as the cyclist is always at fault	0	31-07-2023 22:23
Thou shalt not murder a tomato, this law has me in trouble	2	13-05-2023 23:41
Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law	56	10-05-2023 15:46
Murphy's Law	1	05-04-2023 21:24
The Kent Papers: New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions	21	01-02-2023 13:42