Remember me
▼ Content

The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat



Page 3 of 4<1234>
17-05-2017 23:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:
You really have to explain how you think momentum is involved.


For all we know gases like nitrogen and oxygen transfer angular momentum to co2 and water vapor. If so then this would effect how excited these gases are. As a result the amount of electromagnetic radiation they can absorb and then emit would change.

Jim


If I understand you correctly of COURSE angular momentum is transferred between gases. This is referred to as conduction of energy or heat. This is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

I would not call this conservation of angular momentum because in the process of transferring momentum from one molecule to another work is done which means that the momentum transferred is less than the initial momentum - this is because the new particle must be accelerated.
18-05-2017 00:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
Wake wrote: [angular momentum] is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

You've got to be kidding me. Angular momentum? Really?

First, heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a flow of thermal energy. Heat is not moved. Heat is the movement of thermal energy.

Second, the word you seek in this case is "convection." That is what moves thermal energy from the surface up into the atmosphere.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
18-05-2017 01:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: [angular momentum] is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

You've got to be kidding me. Angular momentum? Really?

First, heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a flow of thermal energy. Heat is not moved. Heat is the movement of thermal energy.

Second, the word you seek in this case is "convection." That is what moves thermal energy from the surface up into the atmosphere.


.


We can do without your smart assed exact definitions thinking you somehow have some sort of superior knowledge.

If you do not understand what causes the momentum of atoms and molecules don't bother to stick your nose in.

There IS no convection without heat energy and that does not occur in one spot without conduction.

And convection is not the only path of heat into the upper atmosphere. Both radiation and conduction are also there.

Apparently you do not know what convection is so go get some book learning before shooting your mouth off anymore.
18-05-2017 02:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
Wake wrote: We can do without your smart assed exact definitions thinking you somehow have some sort of superior knowledge.

The problem is that my knowledge is vastly superior to yours. You are a moron. We can't get around that.

Wake wrote: If you do not understand what causes the momentum of atoms and molecules don't bother to stick your nose in.

That reminds me, I should cross-post your original statement to another forum's "dumbest thing said" thread ... so everyone can get a laugh.

Wake wrote: There IS no convection without heat energy and that does not occur in one spot without conduction.

You obviously don't understand heat. There's absolutely no reason to believe you understand anything in physics.

So, ... how likely to succeed, in your opinion, are your attempts to intimidate me? Hint: you don't know anything, and you're insecure about it.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
18-05-2017 05:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: We can do without your smart assed exact definitions thinking you somehow have some sort of superior knowledge.

The problem is that my knowledge is vastly superior to yours. You are a moron. We can't get around that.

Wake wrote: If you do not understand what causes the momentum of atoms and molecules don't bother to stick your nose in.

That reminds me, I should cross-post your original statement to another forum's "dumbest thing said" thread ... so everyone can get a laugh.

Wake wrote: There IS no convection without heat energy and that does not occur in one spot without conduction.

You obviously don't understand heat. There's absolutely no reason to believe you understand anything in physics.

So, ... how likely to succeed, in your opinion, are your attempts to intimidate me? Hint: you don't know anything, and you're insecure about it.


.


Curiously I gave you references to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations and you didn't address them. Instead you are calling me names.

I wonder why that is?

Wikipedia: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity, {epsilon <1}

Hyperphysics:

"For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:"

P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)T^4

"where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form"

P = (epsilon)(sigma)delta T^4

https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/02/01/basics-emissivity-and-the-stefan-boltzmann-equation/

Which gives an explanation of what the law is actually doing in the real world that you don't recognize. You know - the one in which unlike yours emissivity is always <1?

https://www.google.com/search?q=stefan-boltzmann+equations&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS532US532&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRm8_qsfjTAhUCw2MKHbReCpoQsAQIngE&biw=1280&bih=615#imgrc=aDB9-kUmO51qcM:

Here is a depiction of the actual flux of energy demonstrated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law that you can't understand why I am talking about Bell curves.

I suggest you take all of your superior knowledge and take it over to the "world's dumbest" site and show them just how smart you are.
18-05-2017 05:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:
You really have to explain how you think momentum is involved.


For all we know gases like nitrogen and oxygen transfer angular momentum to co2 and water vapor. If so then this would effect how excited these gases are. As a result the amount of electromagnetic radiation they can absorb and then emit would change.

Jim


If I understand you correctly of COURSE angular momentum is transferred between gases. This is referred to as conduction of energy or heat. This is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

I would not call this conservation of angular momentum because in the process of transferring momentum from one molecule to another work is done which means that the momentum transferred is less than the initial momentum - this is because the new particle must be accelerated.


Between the troposphere and the stratosphere is the tropopause which is quite cold.
What you both are forgetting to ask is if increased levels of co2 allow the troposphere to contain more heat. I don't think either of you have mentioned that stratospheric cooling is associated with a warmer troposphere. Of course it remains to be seen if a healthy ozone layer resolves that issue, you know, warms the stratosphere.
18-05-2017 05:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:
You really have to explain how you think momentum is involved.


For all we know gases like nitrogen and oxygen transfer angular momentum to co2 and water vapor. If so then this would effect how excited these gases are. As a result the amount of electromagnetic radiation they can absorb and then emit would change.

Jim


If I understand you correctly of COURSE angular momentum is transferred between gases. This is referred to as conduction of energy or heat. This is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

I would not call this conservation of angular momentum because in the process of transferring momentum from one molecule to another work is done which means that the momentum transferred is less than the initial momentum - this is because the new particle must be accelerated.


Between the troposphere and the stratosphere is the tropopause which is quite cold.
What you both are forgetting to ask is if increased levels of co2 allow the troposphere to contain more heat. I don't think either of you have mentioned that stratospheric cooling is associated with a warmer troposphere. Of course it remains to be seen if a healthy ozone layer resolves that issue, you know, warms the stratosphere.


You're losing me again. CO2 in any case is a trace gas of only one out of every 2,500 molecules. What's more, in the Tropopause it was to receive radiation in its absorption band and the only source of that is the Sun. So CO2 again blocks radiation that would be down in thick atmosphere otherwise.

Again and again CO2 turns out to be a coolant and not a heater or a heat storage medium.

PS - the stratosphere actually HEATS with altitude into the stratopause.
18-05-2017 06:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
Wake wrote: Curiously I gave you references to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations and you didn't address them. Instead you are calling me names.

I wonder why that is?

Because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who jumped on me when I was trying to help you, so blow me.

I did not ask for any references on any blackbody science because I know that material already. I tried to help you when it became obvious that you are utterly clueless, but you just became an indignant ashsole, so I'll just have fun mocking you because you can't hang with me.

I would have rather been debating the other losers on your side, but so be it.

So, ... post something else. Let's have some fun.


..


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
18-05-2017 14:14
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Curiously I gave you references to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations and you didn't address them. Instead you are calling me names.

I wonder why that is?

Because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who jumped on me when I was trying to help you, so blow me.

I did not ask for any references on any blackbody science because I know that material already. I tried to help you when it became obvious that you are utterly clueless, but you just became an indignant ashsole, so I'll just have fun mocking you because you can't hang with me.

I would have rather been debating the other losers on your side, but so be it.

So, ... post something else. Let's have some fun.


..


It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet. Of which the title of this thread asks if our atmosphere can store energy. Since it does can it store more energy if it's composition is changed. I think I lose him when I consider how co2 interacts with our atmosphere. It might be that people who support co2 warms our planet might not have considered that it might not warm our environment as much as they believe. Until we know more about the specific amount of heat it can cause our atmosphere to store then we can't know it's true influence.

Jim
18-05-2017 14:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Facts we do know. We have record levels of CO2 and CH4 helping to support the ozone layer. We also have stratospheric cooling.
Because of smog (air pollution) we have bad ozone. Without physical testing we can't be certain if air pollution or a component of it has a warming effect.

Jim
18-05-2017 16:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
James_ wrote: It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet.

Science does not say this.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy (re: Planck's Law). Your statement, as it stands, implies that CO2 provides additional energy.

Unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy (re: 1st LoT) tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

You have an apparent contradiction on your hands.

James_ wrote: Of which the title of this thread asks if our atmosphere can store energy.

It really cannot. No substance can. Science answers that question.

Thermal radiation flows freely out of all matter per Stefan-Boltzmann. The only independent determinant is temperature, which is based on the amount of thermal energy that is to flow out.

James_ wrote: Since it does ...

It does not.

James_ wrote: can it store more energy if it's composition is changed.

Once again, science says "no." There is no material composition component to Stefan-Boltzmann, which applies to all matter, always, everywhere.

James_ wrote: I think I lose him when I consider how co2 interacts with our atmosphere.

At most CO2 can affect how energy is transferred around the atmosphere but CO2 cannot itself create additional energy to increase temperature.

[this is the point where you begin to argue that CO2 reduces earth's radiance but increases it's temperature... a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann]


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
18-05-2017 16:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet.

Science does not say this.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy (re: Planck's Law). Your statement, as it stands, implies that CO2 provides additional energy.

Unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy (re: 1st LoT) tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

You have an apparent contradiction on your hands.



You and Wake just like bothering people it seems. Just not sure how you can forget about the Sun. Maybe you 2 just like sparring with each other over
nothing ?
And Wake, what you and you're friend don't seem to consider is that at the moment CO2 is considered to be causing our atmosphere to retain solar radiation in ever increasing higher levels.


The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

@All, Kind of why I am for finding specifically how varying mixtures of gases, aerosols and particulates can change how much solar radiation is absorbed or reflected.
Edited on 18-05-2017 17:01
18-05-2017 18:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet.

Science does not say this.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy (re: Planck's Law). Your statement, as it stands, implies that CO2 provides additional energy.

Unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy (re: 1st LoT) tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

You have an apparent contradiction on your hands.



You and Wake just like bothering people it seems. Just not sure how you can forget about the Sun. Maybe you 2 just like sparring with each other over
nothing ?
And Wake, what you and you're friend don't seem to consider is that at the moment CO2 is considered to be causing our atmosphere to retain solar radiation in ever increasing higher levels.


The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

@All, Kind of why I am for finding specifically how varying mixtures of gases, aerosols and particulates can change how much solar radiation is absorbed or reflected.


James, "CO2 is considered to be causing our atmosphere to retain solar radiation in ever increasing higher levels"

Perhaps you don't understand what's being said - those claims by NOAA and NASA are false. The temperature records do not match those of Russia, Japan or other countries.

Dr. Spencer has shown that using DIRECT satellite records we are NOT in any sort of unusual warming and that despite the fact that True Believers that print absolute garbage (https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246) that these are nothing more than the NORMAL chaotic weather variables.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Do you see how ONE year was used as "proof" of AGW?

If you are going to accept lies instead of accepting actual scientific proof there's not much we have to say to each other.

By "The panel also concluded" I wonder who you think this panel is?

Methane in the atmosphere has doubled over the last 70 years - from one part per million to two.

Nitrous oxide from 290 parts per billion to 330 - 12% in 70 years.

We have NO long term records of the "natural levels" of either methane or nitrous oxide and the claims of these gases being "boiled off of tundra or from the Great Lakes" have never been shown to actually happen with the most sensitive detectors.

I have no idea at all where you think you are getting your understanding of science. Believing in the idea of "consensus" reminds me of the 1,000 people that wrote papers berating Albert Einstein. His remark was - "if you have the science why have 1,000 when one would do?"
18-05-2017 20:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.


Jim
Edited on 18-05-2017 21:19
18-05-2017 23:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.
18-05-2017 23:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.


I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.
19-05-2017 00:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.


I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.


And you'll notice that yours isn't.
19-05-2017 01:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.


I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.


And you'll notice that yours isn't.


That's because I'm not the only person with an opinion.
19-05-2017 01:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.


I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.


James - the ENTIRE problem is that you are. You simply cannot be corrected. And you cannot debate. Our answers might be incorrect and possibly you could correct them but that isn't what you're doing - you are correct and anyone that criticized you is an ****.

These are the actions of a high school student and not an adult.

And you'll notice that yours isn't.


That's because I'm not the only person with an opinion.
19-05-2017 02:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
James_ wrote: Just not sure how you can forget about the Sun.

The sun is not forgotten..

Is science not to your liking?

James_ wrote: And Wake, what you and you're friend don't seem to consider is that at the moment CO2 is considered to be causing our atmosphere to retain solar radiation in ever increasing higher levels.

This is a classic warmizombie passive-voice fail. WHO considers CO2 to be defying the laws of thermodynamics?

The only fact of importance is that science doesn't NOT consider any substance able to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.


Correct me if I'm somehow mistaken but if there is no "greenhouse effect" then there is no such thing as "greenhouse gas."

So why do you hate science?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-05-2017 02:50
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
da man,
You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion. That seems to make you both feel threatened. The way you 2 lash out reminds me those 2 guys in Dumb and Dumber.
I think everyone here except for maybe you 2 knows that our atmosphere doesn't heat itself. And the Sun isn't the only source of heat.
19-05-2017 03:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
James_ wrote:
da man, You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion.

We need to get something straight.

I don't care one iota about your opinions.

I simply post science, and the explanations are free of charge.

You, on the other hand, HATE science because it runs counter to your WACKY religious fantasy and thus makes you feel threatened, explaining your previous projection on the matter. You are a quintessential science denier.

You are welcome to whatever opinions, fantasies and science denial you wish. Enjoy!


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-05-2017 03:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:
da man, You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion.

We need to get something straight.

I don't care one iota about your opinions.

I simply post science, and the explanations are free of charge.

You, on the other hand, HATE science because it runs counter to your WACKY religious fantasy and thus makes you feel threatened, explaining your previous projection on the matter. You are a quintessential science denier.

You are welcome to whatever opinions, fantasies and science denial you wish. Enjoy!


.


I think I hit a nerve. :-)
BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.
19-05-2017 05:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
da man,
You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion. That seems to make you both feel threatened. The way you 2 lash out reminds me those 2 guys in Dumb and Dumber.
I think everyone here except for maybe you 2 knows that our atmosphere doesn't heat itself. And the Sun isn't the only source of heat.


James - having your own opinions are fine. If you are going to express them try not to act as if people don't know Newton's laws of motion or as if it is some sort of secret that no one else could understand.

What you have expressed is not secret and you don't even seem to understand it correctly. Since you have so much respect for NASA try reading their take on it:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/conmo.html
19-05-2017 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
James_ wrote: BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.

Now let's talk about your scientific illiteracy.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all material objects, i.e. all matter, including individual molecules, always everywhere, in all inertial frames of reference.

In other words, there is no time or place where Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a material body.

Now let's discuss why you claimed Stefan-Boltzmann somehow "does not apply."

Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate and don't know anything about Stefan-Boltzmann beyond how much they HATE it because it kills their "greenhouse effect" myth. So they try to "erase" the inconvenient science by declaring that science somehow does not apply where Global Warming is concerned.

Global Warming is a WACKY religion that appeals to the gullible and stupid science deniers.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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 19-05-2017 06:31
19-05-2017 14:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.

Now let's talk about your scientific illiteracy.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all material objects, i.e. all matter, including individual molecules, always everywhere, in all inertial frames of reference.

In other words, there is no time or place where Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a material body.

Now let's discuss why you claimed Stefan-Boltzmann somehow "does not apply."

Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate and don't know anything about Stefan-Boltzmann beyond how much they HATE it because it kills their "greenhouse effect" myth. So they try to "erase" the inconvenient science by declaring that science somehow does not apply where Global Warming is concerned.

Global Warming is a WACKY religion that appeals to the gullible and stupid science deniers.


.


You have nothing better than personal attacks ? And you are someone who likes science, right ?
This is funny. Haven't watched the show Mann and Wife on Bounce but I keep thinking Mann and Wake, lol.

As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done. I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.
19-05-2017 15:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.


.




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
19-05-2017 16:11
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.

p.s., that's my video. It's based on Max Planck's original experiment and what lead to him calculating his constant.


.




.


I think you are right. You did present science in the form of Stefan - Boltzmann. What it applies to is this;https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock
Edited on 19-05-2017 16:15
19-05-2017 17:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.

Now let's talk about your scientific illiteracy.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all material objects, i.e. all matter, including individual molecules, always everywhere, in all inertial frames of reference.

In other words, there is no time or place where Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a material body.

Now let's discuss why you claimed Stefan-Boltzmann somehow "does not apply."

Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate and don't know anything about Stefan-Boltzmann beyond how much they HATE it because it kills their "greenhouse effect" myth. So they try to "erase" the inconvenient science by declaring that science somehow does not apply where Global Warming is concerned.

Global Warming is a WACKY religion that appeals to the gullible and stupid science deniers.


.


You have nothing better than personal attacks ? And you are someone who likes science, right ?
This is funny. Haven't watched the show Mann and Wife on Bounce but I keep thinking Mann and Wake, lol.

As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done. I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.


Yes, James, he makes pointless personal attacks. Get over it because there are far too many people out there like that. But you have to learn to distinguish between people disagreeing with you and pointless personal attacks.

What I see you publishing is that you're being bullied. How old are you?
19-05-2017 19:50
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.
19-05-2017 20:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim


so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.


Apparently you see this as a pointless attack. This was nothing more than a statement of fact. Newton's laws of motion aren't exactly some new-fangled invention.

Leitwolf published a paper and referred to it. Have you bothered to read it? His calculations pretty much showed that the miscalculations of albedo is what has allowed NOAA to get away with their crap.

Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.

I gave you a reference to the NASA page speaking in the simplest possible terms of conservation of momentum. Did you even bother to read it? Did you see that the calculations said exactly what I told you? That momentum isn't actually "conserved" because work is done when two particles collide. The target particle must be accelerated. This reduces the energy available to both particles.

So heat energy, in the way of motion, is whittled away in conduction. As it is with convection when the air particles are accelerated into the decreasing density as the air mass rises.

None of this is magic. All of it is known. Small details such as Leitwolf's calculation show where the crowd has been following the wrong man playing the magic flute.
19-05-2017 21:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Deleted
Edited on 19-05-2017 21:29
19-05-2017 21:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Deleted


Also spelled: "Whaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa".

You needn't frequent this site if you find criticism of childish behavior so offensive.
19-05-2017 22:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Deleted


Also spelled: "Whaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa".

You needn't frequent this site if you find criticism of childish behavior so offensive.


I find you offensive. After all, if I want to discuss something I have to give you credit for advising me. I don't think you know that much.
19-05-2017 22:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.


You know very well that we agree on most things. I only disagree with you on your insistence that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the answer to everything.

The climate may be changing. That remains to be seen. We CAN say that man has nothing or so little as to be negligible to do with it.

After all - two hundred years ago the climate was colder than an ice cube on a bare butt. We have seen it warm. Nowhere near the amount that is claimed. And certainly not for the reasons that were stated so that politicians could obtain more power.
20-05-2017 01:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.


You know very well that we agree on most things. I only disagree with you on your insistence that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the answer to everything.

The climate may be changing. That remains to be seen. We CAN say that man has nothing or so little as to be negligible to do with it.

After all - two hundred years ago the climate was colder than an ice cube on a bare butt. We have seen it warm. Nowhere near the amount that is claimed. And certainly not for the reasons that were stated so that politicians could obtain more power.


@All,
If you read what he posted, he said nothing. A TROLL'S post if I ever saw one. And that's all he does.
Edited on 20-05-2017 01:40
20-05-2017 01:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)


Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.


@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
20-05-2017 01:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:


Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.


@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


Do you suppose you could make even the slightest attempt to learn something:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/newton.html
20-05-2017 02:11
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:


Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.


@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


Do you suppose you could make even the slightest attempt to learn something:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/newton.html


Troll
20-05-2017 02:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:


Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.


@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


Do you suppose you could make even the slightest attempt to learn something:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/newton.html


You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.
Edited on 20-05-2017 02:23
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Global Warming (not necessarily caused by people) will release nasty extinct viruses from tens of thousan101-05-2020 05:04
could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?810-02-2020 01:42
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
Definition of heat and heat pump4021-01-2020 18:21
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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