Remember me
▼ Content

The Emissivity Question



Page 1 of 212>
The Emissivity Question09-09-2016 20:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
There are those "climate" worshipers whose "angle" at getting around physics to support "greenhouse effect" is to claim that "greenhouse gas" increases temperature by altering the emissivity of the planet, i.e. more "greenhouse gas" means greater altering of the emissivity in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

So the $10 emissivity question is: If we pretend that emissivity is a variable (i.e. we ignore the fact that it is a constant), since "greenhouse gas" is such an EM-absorbing superhero, and since emissivity is the measure of a body's absorption, wouldn't "greenhouse gas" (were there such a thing) therefore increase earth's emissivity?

Stefan-Boltzmann equation specifies:
( [Constant Solar Energy] / emissivity*StfBltz )^(1/4) = Temperature

As emissivity increases, temperature decreases ... or have I missed something?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
27-05-2017 18:32
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
and since emissivity is the measure of a body's absorption


If that was so, we should call it absorptivity. But rather emissivity is the opposite of absorptivity. Of course both are connected in the way that they are two sides of one coin.
Indeed Kirchhoffs says that emissivity = absorptivity at any given wavelength. Though as wavelengths will be different for short wave solar radiation and long wave terrestial infrared, absorptivity != emissivity.
Yet both A and E will be losely related, as they only differ by the variation of A = E over different wavelenghts.

Greenhouse gases are believed to decrease emissivity (as they block emissions in what so ever way) and thereby would heat the planet, even more so, if we'd increase them.

Without GHGs however, it is being postulated Earth had an emissivity of 1, just like a PBB. Which of course is completely wrong. As shown by Leitwolf et myself, water (the dominant surface type) has an emissivity of only 0.84. Adding clouds to the "surface", which is done with absorptivity anyhow, emissivity drops to about 0.58. Applying these results on the formula (A/E)^0.25 *tPBB = tEARTH we get (0.69/0.58)^0.25*279.2 = 291.6K.

A temperature which is higher than the arithmetic average of the observed surface temperatures of Earth, and will not leave any space or scope for a theoretic GHE or GHGs.

No how do I get my 10$?
27-05-2017 19:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Leitwolf wrote:
and since emissivity is the measure of a body's absorption


If that was so, we should call it absorptivity.

You can call it either. Emissivity and absorptivity are the same value. The inverse of emissivity is called albedo.
Leitwolf wrote:
But rather emissivity is the opposite of absorptivity.

No. The opposite of emissivity is albedo. Albedo is 1/emissivity. Absorptivity and emissivity are the same value.
Leitwolf wrote:
Of course both are connected in the way that they are two sides of one coin.

They are the same sides of the coin. Albedo is the 'other' side.
Leitwolf wrote:
Indeed Kirchhoffs says that emissivity = absorptivity at any given wavelength. Though as wavelengths will be different for short wave solar radiation and long wave terrestial infrared, absorptivity != emissivity.
Yet both A and E will be losely related, as they only differ by the variation of A = E over different wavelenghts.

Emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. This is the result of integrating Planck's law of all frequencies of light.
Leitwolf wrote:
Greenhouse gases are believed to decrease emissivity (as they block emissions in what so ever way) and thereby would heat the planet, even more so, if we'd increase them.

Blocking emissions is also a decrease of absorptivity. The Earth would cool, not warm. It is the same as increasing albedo. More light is reflected, not absorbed.
Leitwolf wrote:
Without GHGs however, it is being postulated Earth had an emissivity of 1, just like a PBB. Which of course is completely wrong. As shown by Leitwolf et myself, water (the dominant surface type) has an emissivity of only 0.84. Adding clouds to the "surface", which is done with absorptivity anyhow, emissivity drops to about 0.58. Applying these results on the formula (A/E)^0.25 *tPBB = tEARTH we get (0.69/0.58)^0.25*279.2 = 291.6K.

Argument from randU. You are manufacturing numbers. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth, it's oceans, or it's clouds. The only way to measure emissivity is by using a known temperature of a surface. Since this is what you are trying to 'calculate', you are just working in circles with random numbers.
Leitwolf wrote:
A temperature which is higher than the arithmetic average of the observed surface temperatures of Earth, and will not leave any space or scope for a theoretic GHE or GHGs.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. This is a math problem, not one of the instrumentation or one of any theory of science.
Leitwolf wrote:
No how do I get my 10$?


By using random numbers (in the form of randU, or the 'predictable' or 'designated' random number).

Manufacturing data is no way to go through life, son.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-05-2017 19:51
27-05-2017 20:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Leitwolf wrote:No how do I get my 10$?

I need to clarify that particular post.

Warmizombies are forever claiming that Stefan-Boltzmann computes temperature given a radiance.

I was just repeating the standard argument that if you presume Stefan-Boltzmann computes temperature and you treat the Emmisivity constant as a variable, then an increase in Emissivity yields a DECREASE in temperature ... unless I'm missing something!

We know that Emissivity is a constant and that a higher Emissivity yields a HIGHER temperature.

Leitwolf wrote: If that was so, we should call it absorptivity.

Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting.

Stefan and Boltzmann *could* have named that constant "Absorptivity" but they chose to name it "Emissivity." Actually, I think they used a term in German.

Leitwolf wrote: But rather emissivity is the opposite of absorptivity.

Nope. The "opposite" of Emissivity/Absorptivity is Albedo/Reflectivity.

The relationship is as follows:

Emissivity (Absorptivity) + Albedo (Reflectivity) = 1.0 (100%)


Leitwolf wrote: Though as wavelengths will be different for short wave solar radiation and long wave terrestial infrared, absorptivity != emissivity.

Emissivity is the average over all wavelengths for a given body, just as Stefan-Boltzmann is derived from Planck's by integrating over all wavelengths.

You don't get to change it to anything other than "for all wavelengths." Notice that Stefan-Boltzmann has no "wavelength" parameter, nor does the Emissivity constant.

Leitwolf wrote: Greenhouse gases are believed to decrease emissivity (as they block emissions in what so ever way) and thereby would heat the planet, even more so, if we'd increase them.

1. There is no scientific basis for such a belief. There is, however, much WACKY religious dogma driving such belief.

2. The idea that DECREASING Emmisivity somehow INCREASES temperature is only purported by warmizombies who insist that Stefan-Boltzmann calculates temperature. I normally mock them when they do but I might not have been clear on occasion.

A higher Emissivity is needed for higher temperatures.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
27-05-2017 23:40
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?
28-05-2017 11:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Leitwolf wrote:
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?

Now you're just being a moron.

Go read up. I'm not going to explain any more if you're just going to be an idiot.

I did not author the science; I was merely explaining it to you. Your class of science denial is why Global Warming is on its deathbed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-05-2017 17:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?


There's no sense in trying to speak to someone that is an idiot. You can't convince him that his religion is not real.
29-05-2017 18:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Wake wrote:There's no sense in trying to speak to someone that is an idiot. You can't convince him that his religion is not real.

Yet Leitwolf continues to address you directly..


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-05-2017 19:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.
29-05-2017 19:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.


A molecule can't emit more energy than it absorbed. If a molecule absorbs IR, that's what it will emit, if it emits anything at all due to the absorption. A molecule might lost energy in a different way and not emit at all (except for Stefan-Boltzmann emission, which is not due to light absorption).


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2017 21:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.


A molecule can't emit more energy than it absorbed. If a molecule absorbs IR, that's what it will emit, if it emits anything at all due to the absorption. A molecule might lost energy in a different way and not emit at all (except for Stefan-Boltzmann emission, which is not due to light absorption).


You are an idiot. As is usual you speak about things you know nothing about.
29-05-2017 22:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting


No, it is not! As already the name says, btw. For the reason, that A != E surfaces attain different temperatures when exposed to (direct) sun light. "The cat on the hot tin roof".. ever questioned why tin roofs turn hot?


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.


A molecule can't emit more energy than it absorbed. If a molecule absorbs IR, that's what it will emit, if it emits anything at all due to the absorption. A molecule might lost energy in a different way and not emit at all (except for Stefan-Boltzmann emission, which is not due to light absorption).


You are an idiot. As is usual you speak about things you know nothing about.


So where does the energy come from to emit a more powerful photon than what was absorbed?

Are you creating energy out of nothing again?


The Parrot Killer
30-05-2017 03:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-05-2017 21:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.
31-05-2017 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-05-2017 21:21
31-05-2017 22:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


OK, I give up - what are you proposing as the invisible source of energy in the atmosphere that isn't being carried into the stratosphere and the thermosphere other than heat.
01-06-2017 03:30
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:

Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.


It is actually, kind of. All energy have thermal origin, being dependent on the temperature of the emitter. In earth´s case that is the sun, and the earth´s internal heat. Some of it is transformed into kinetic energy like the work that follow conducted heat causing convection, against gravitational resistance. And of course electricity in thunderstorms and such. But the cost is high for these transformations and accounting for heat by using temperature as indicator of emissive power at a point measured, will include all energy included in the volume/body measured. All energy of mass, as heat or any other kind, is included in temperature.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.


But it doesn´t really matter, because temperature is the sum of energy, and all that matters is the flow of heat, when talking bulk temperature. The flow of heat is determined by emissive power from temperature. And the flow of heat is what this is about.


Temperature is not the only measurement of energy.


True, but it is the only measure including everything in a single measurement. Remove a single molecule, and it will affect temperature, if you have enough sensitivity of your instrument.

As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.


But available energy is the emissive power of the surroundings of measurement, and that depends only on temperature. If temperature increase between, say 50000 and 51000 meter altitude, no doubt the available energy for raising the temperature of anything is higher. Don´t you agree?

The energy of 14C water is higher than the solar constant, but only one of them will heat me up fast on to high temperature. Available energy equals temperature. The higher the temperature, the faster you can make something hotter. No matter how thin the air, every absorbed photon is immediately replaced by a new one, so available energy seems vast under those conditions. But I understand how you think.

When the question is about heat, nothing matters but temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.


I would guess so too. At that temperature it matches the amount of solar radiation reduced on the way to surface, about 300W/m^2. Co2 cannot reach that level of emission in 15micrometer, coming from low temperatures below.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


Aah, the old unicorn "potential energy",
. The energy that can´t be measured, can´t be seen or experienced. Potential energy doesn´t exist, so no energy can convert into it.

If we use gravity as example, a badger at 4000meter has no energy other than what it´s body contain. Right?

The potential is where you can extract/measure a release of energy, which is at the surface. So the badger falls, and on impact the energy of acceleration turns into heat, which transfers to the surface. It leaves a -E at the surface throwing it up there, not a +E in the badger. It increase its kinetic energy when rising, but that drops to 0 when turning down again. Then you have -E at the surface as the badger accelerates towards it. The energy is unavailable unless you can excert a counter force equal to the force of the falling badger. So the potential is only what is released as heat from the crushing of badger-anatomy, since that is what exceeds the force of the fall, and the equal opposite force of the ground taking the hit.

Gravity with a force of 9.8^2*Nm^2, units for thermal resistance and pressure, needs a source intensity to supply the energy for that force doing work on the badger. According to the inv.square law, a source of a radiating force equal to gravity has the intensity of 4x9.8^2=384W/m^2. Which is equal to surface temp of 287 Kelvin. Gravity does work on the badger which is turned into heat at ground level. Heat, heat & heat, that is the sum of it all.

So, potential energy in the atmosphere, has the same temperature as the surface. It is a bit weird, I am still trying to wrap my head around this. Gravity seems to act like thermal resistance by continously acting on the atmosphere doing the work of pulling it down, and using the units of pressure/stress/resistance show how it is equal to a source intensity as what we see in surface emission. +384emission-384work. Just like the first law, deltaU=Q-W.
I visualize it as a fountain of mass, driven by heat, collapsing on itself when the wave of energy is diminishing with altitude. It is loop-like, which would mean that surface temperature don´t change. Because then gravity would change. I think there is some serious rotting going on in surface temperature data sets and how they are tortured into climate science pornography.
01-06-2017 03:45
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Wake wrote:


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.


This link shows emission in low infrared in stratosphere. Did you mean the other way around? Absorb .35 which is emitted as lower frequency? It is interesting anyway.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg
01-06-2017 04:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Wake wrote:


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.


This link shows emission in low infrared in stratosphere. Did you mean the other way around? Absorb .35 which is emitted as lower frequency? It is interesting anyway.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg


You have to remember that emission and absorption are two different things.

Absorption bands of CO2 are in the middle to lower infrared bands. The heat indicated by the lower CO2 bands is actually colder than the South Pole.

But after CO2 is moved into the stratosphere by the conduction/convection process they are exposed to high energy radiation by the absence of an atmosphere and/or H2O to protect these molecules. These particles are generally protons but other high energy particles are involved as well.

Because of this they gather energy directly from collision and emit radiation in the region of 3850 to 4700 angstrom or approximately 4.0^E7 unless I'm making a conversion error.

Here's a paper that's a little difficult to handle but has the information: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/SvA../0010//0000165.000.html
01-06-2017 05:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
LifeIsThermal wrote: Gravity does work on the badger which is turned into heat at ground level.


This is generally referred to and the SPLAT effect.
01-06-2017 15:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Wake wrote: Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

My understanding of thermodynamics is excellent and I see that yours isn't.

Wake wrote: I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

You have merely speculated on phenomena for which you have unacceptably paltry data.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-06-2017 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


OK, I give up - what are you proposing as the invisible source of energy in the atmosphere that isn't being carried into the stratosphere and the thermosphere other than heat.


It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is.


The Parrot Killer
01-06-2017 21:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.


It is actually, kind of.

Not even kind of.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
All energy have thermal origin, being dependent on the temperature of the emitter. In earth´s case that is the sun, and the earth´s internal heat. Some of it is transformed into kinetic energy like the work that follow conducted heat causing convection, against gravitational resistance. And of course electricity in thunderstorms and such. But the cost is high for these transformations and accounting for heat by using temperature as indicator of emissive power at a point measured, will include all energy included in the volume/body measured. All energy of mass, as heat or any other kind, is included in temperature.

Wrong. Temperature is the measurement of the average kinetic movement of molecules. It is nothing else. It is not a measure of light. It is not a measure of potential energy. It is not a measure of any aspect of the strong or weak force. It is not a measure of mass.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.


But it doesn´t really matter, because temperature is the sum of energy, and all that matters is the flow of heat, when talking bulk temperature. The flow of heat is determined by emissive power from temperature. And the flow of heat is what this is about.

The flow of heat is calculated by the difference in temperature between a hot region and a cold region and the coupling of the two regions.

LifeIsThermal wrote:

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy.


True, but it is the only measure including everything in a single measurement. Remove a single molecule, and it will affect temperature, if you have enough sensitivity of your instrument.

It does not measure everything. Removing a molecule does not affect temperature at all.

So long as you have a molecule to measure, you have a temperature.

LifeIsThermal wrote:
As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.


But available energy is the emissive power of the surroundings of measurement, and that depends only on temperature. If temperature increase between, say 50000 and 51000 meter altitude, no doubt the available energy for raising the temperature of anything is higher. Don´t you agree?

No.

LifeIsThermal wrote:
The energy of 14C water is higher than the solar constant,

That would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. Nothing can have more energy than what it receives.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
but only one of them will heat me up fast on to high temperature.

You seem to be confusing conduction with energy level.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Available energy equals temperature.

Wrong. Many forms of energy have no temperature at all.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
The higher the temperature, the faster you can make something hotter.

This makes no sense. Are you referring to one region or two? If one, there is NO heat.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
No matter how thin the air, every absorbed photon is immediately replaced by a new one,

Wrong. The rate of 'replacement' is an actual interval of time based on the intensity of the light. This is usually given as photons per second. It can be calculated. It is essentially an average.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
so available energy seems vast under those conditions.

Just because something has a lot of energy, that doesn't make it uncalculable.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
But I understand how you think.

Don't think so.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
When the question is about heat, nothing matters but temperature.

Plenty matters. What is the coupling? What is the difference in temperature between the hot region and the cold region? The actual temperature of either region is not the issue. The [u]difference[/i] of temperature is. If there is no difference of temperature, you have no heat.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.


I would guess so too. At that temperature it matches the amount of solar radiation reduced on the way to surface, about 300W/m^2. Co2 cannot reach that level of emission in 15micrometer, coming from low temperatures below.

This doesn't even describe the temperature profile of the atmosphere.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


Aah, the old unicorn "potential energy",
. The energy that can´t be measured, can´t be seen or experienced. Potential energy doesn´t exist, so no energy can convert into it.

It does exist. I suggest a physics book that describes potential energy. It can be observed and measured.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
If we use gravity as example, a badger at 4000meter has no energy other than what it´s body contain. Right?

Wrong.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
The potential is where you can extract/measure a release of energy, which is at the surface.

The surface does not have to provide the energy of a badger being lifted to 4km. It just usually does (for those people who like lifting badgers this high).
LifeIsThermal wrote:
So the badger falls, and on impact the energy of acceleration turns into heat, which transfers to the surface.

It also turns into death (a rather messy one).
LifeIsThermal wrote:
It leaves a -E at the surface throwing it up there, not a +E in the badger.

It leaves both. You are violating the law of the conservation of energy by destroying energy.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
It increase its kinetic energy when rising,

Only if it rises faster and faster.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
but that drops to 0 when turning down again.

If by that, you mean the peak height of the unfortunate badger, true. If it is rising faster and faster, it will not turn down again.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Then you have -E at the surface as the badger accelerates towards it.

The surface doesn't care whether a badger is moving away or toward it. The energy in the surface doesn't change.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
The energy is unavailable unless you can excert a counter force equal to the force of the falling badger.

There is no counter force to the falling badger, other than atmospheric drag. Not enough to save our badger from an unfortunate end.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
So the potential is only what is released as heat from the crushing of badger-anatomy, since that is what exceeds the force of the fall, and the equal opposite force of the ground taking the hit.

At impact, the badger (which consists of molecules bound by electromagnetic forces) contacts the Earth (which consists of molecules bound by electromagnetic forces). The messy death is the result of the electromagnetic forces trying to hold the badger and the Earth together. Earth usually wins.
...deleted remaining bad math...
LifeIsThermal wrote:
So, potential energy in the atmosphere, has the same temperature as the surface.

Potential energy does not have a temperature.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
It is a bit weird, I am still trying to wrap my head around this.

Don't bother. You are trying to wrap your head around something other than physics.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Gravity seems to act like thermal resistance

No. Gravity is one kind of force. That is all. It has no temperature.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
by continously acting on the atmosphere doing the work of pulling it down,

Pulling down an atmosphere doesn't inhibit convection. Not at all. Convective flow will occur in any liquid under acceleration, whether it is due to gravity or not, regardless of the strength of a particular gravity field.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
and using the units of pressure/stress/resistance show how it is equal to a source intensity as what we see in surface emission.

You can't just convert units willy-nilly. It is senseless.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
+384emission-384work. Just like the first law, deltaU=Q-W.
I visualize it as a fountain of mass, driven by heat, collapsing on itself when the wave of energy is diminishing with altitude.

Certainly original.Not much to do with physics.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
It is loop-like, which would mean that surface temperature don´t change. Because then gravity would change.

Gravity is not affected by surface temperature.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
I think there is some serious rotting going on in surface temperature data sets

What data sets? There aren't any!
LifeIsThermal wrote:
and how they are tortured into climate science pornography.

You may call it pornography, but you are just looking at a blow-up doll. The 'data' is manufactured.


The Parrot Killer
01-06-2017 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Wake wrote:


In the stratosphere the CO2 molecule emits energy at a very high frequency since it has been gathering energy from almost direct sunlight which causes emissions in the neighborhood of .35 uM vs the main absorption band of 6.8 uM.

So this would mean that CO2 absorbs in the low infrared and emits in the low ultraviolet.


This link shows emission in low infrared in stratosphere. Did you mean the other way around? Absorb .35 which is emitted as lower frequency? It is interesting anyway.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg


You have to remember that emission and absorption are two different things.

Wrong. Absorptivity and emissivity are always the same value.
Wake wrote:
Absorption bands of CO2 are in the middle to lower infrared bands.

CO2 will absorb frequencies all over the place. Still haven't looked this stuff up, have you?
Wake wrote:
The heat indicated by the lower CO2 bands is actually colder than the South Pole.

True.
Wake wrote:

But after CO2 is moved into the stratosphere by the conduction/convection process they are exposed to high energy radiation by the absence of an atmosphere and/or H2O to protect these molecules. These particles are generally protons but other high energy particles are involved as well.

Because of this they gather energy directly from collision and emit radiation in the region of 3850 to 4700 angstrom or approximately 4.0^E7 unless I'm making a conversion error.
...deleted redundant link...

You are making a conversion error.

It is based on a false equivalency.

The high energy particles are deflected away by the Van Allen radiation belt, some 3700 miles above the Earth (except near the poles, where such high energy particles produce the Auroras).

Carbon dioxide, if it absorbs energy (it will absorb it in the form of electromagnetic energy, not high speed particles), will either release that same energy (no different the what came in), or dissipated it into other molecules that didn't absorb anything. In that case, the CO2 will not release any light that was absorbed.

At the same time, ALL substances will emit light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is only associated with the temperature of that substance.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 01:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


OK, I give up - what are you proposing as the invisible source of energy in the atmosphere that isn't being carried into the stratosphere and the thermosphere other than heat.


It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is.


Look moron - you are the one with the distorted idea of the world around you. Why are you quoting me when it is your alter ego that made those stupid statements? I really want to get you within arms reach.
02-06-2017 03:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


OK, I give up - what are you proposing as the invisible source of energy in the atmosphere that isn't being carried into the stratosphere and the thermosphere other than heat.


It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is.


Look moron - you are the one with the distorted idea of the world around you. Why are you quoting me when it is your alter ego that made those stupid statements? I really want to get you within arms reach.

Because it is YOU that has and continue to make stupid statements.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 18:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


OK, I give up - what are you proposing as the invisible source of energy in the atmosphere that isn't being carried into the stratosphere and the thermosphere other than heat.


It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is.


Look moron - you are the one with the distorted idea of the world around you. Why are you quoting me when it is your alter ego that made those stupid statements? I really want to get you within arms reach.

Because it is YOU that has and continue to make stupid statements.

Inversion fallacy.


You really are a joke. The quotes are there for all to see and you demonstrate the brains of a six year old "Nuh uh".
02-06-2017 20:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
IBdaMann wrote:Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


I want to make it official; the above simple and straightforward "Yes/No" question is to terrifying for Wake to face and to answer.


Jussayn..



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-06-2017 20:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


I want to make it official; the above simple and straightforward "Yes/No" question is to terrifying for Wake to face and to answer. Jussayn..
.


And again we have idiot boy seeing his alter ego saying dumb things and then he attributes them to me. This is what is normally the act of someone that knows that they can't argue with the only support they have.
02-06-2017 21:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Are you creating energy out of nothing again?

Well, he has to increase temperature somehow, and violating the 1st LoT is the top method behind violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


Can you suggest why you continue to wield the ax of the laws of thermodynamics when you don't know what you're talking about?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/atmprofile.htm

If you can read you can discover that in the Stratosphere the bottom gas temperature is -40 degrees C and the top level is -5 degrees C. Even more incredible is that the bottom of the Thermosphere is -100 degrees C while the top is +80 degrees C.

I have explained why and how these changes occur and how they are the same changes at the same pressure levels on all of the planets except Venus.

But we have to have people that tell us that these actual measurements are against the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or the laws of thermodynamics.


Thermal energy is not the only form of energy. You are confused on this point yet again.

The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does.

That is the same for all planets, including Venus.

Temperature is not the only measurement of energy. As air thins, less ENERGY is available, despite the increasing temperature.

The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone.

The cause of the thermospheric temperature inversion is the exposure to higher energies from the Sun, and the lack of collisions between molecules. TOTAL energy density is decreasing, not increasing, at every altitude increase in the Earth's atmosphere.

You can't trap energy. The closest thing you can get to it is to convert the energy to potential energy, which has no temperature.


OK, I give up - what are you proposing as the invisible source of energy in the atmosphere that isn't being carried into the stratosphere and the thermosphere other than heat.


It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is.


Look moron - you are the one with the distorted idea of the world around you. Why are you quoting me when it is your alter ego that made those stupid statements? I really want to get you within arms reach.

Because it is YOU that has and continue to make stupid statements.

Inversion fallacy.


You really are a joke. The quotes are there for all to see and you demonstrate the brains of a six year old "Nuh uh".


Yup. The quotes are all there to see. That's the beauty of this forum's software. My compliments to the chef!

Too bad you are reading something (who knows what?) into the quotes that are there that YOU made.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


I want to make it official; the above simple and straightforward "Yes/No" question is to terrifying for Wake to face and to answer. Jussayn..
.


And again we have idiot boy seeing his alter ego saying dumb things and then he attributes them to me. This is what is normally the act of someone that knows that they can't argue with the only support they have.


To IBdaMann: Your Q.E.D. is very convincing.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 22:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


I want to make it official; the above simple and straightforward "Yes/No" question is to terrifying for Wake to face and to answer. Jussayn..
.


And again we have idiot boy seeing his alter ego saying dumb things and then he attributes them to me. This is what is normally the act of someone that knows that they can't argue with the only support they have.


To IBdaMann: Your Q.E.D. is very convincing.


IB: " Emissivity and absorptivity are the same value"
IB: "So the $10 emissivity question is: If we pretend that emissivity is a variable (i.e. we ignore the fact that it is a constant)"
IB: "As emissivity increases, temperature decreases"
IB: "The opposite of emissivity is albedo."
IB: "Emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind"
IB: "Blocking emissions is also a decrease of absorptivity"
IB: "You don't know the temperature of the Earth"
IB: "Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting"
IB: "The idea that DECREASING Emmisivity somehow INCREASES temperature is only purported by warmizombies who insist that Stefan-Boltzmann calculates temperature."
IB: "The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does."
IB: "The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone."
IB: "You can't trap energy"
IB: "My understanding of thermodynamics is excellent"
Night: "It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is."
IB: "Absorptivity and emissivity are always the same value"
IB: "CO2 will absorb frequencies all over the place."
IB: "Carbon dioxide, if it absorbs energy (it will absorb it in the form of electromagnetic energy, not high speed particles)"
03-06-2017 00:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
IBdaMann wrote:Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


Wake wrote:
IB: " Emissivity and absorptivity are the same value"
IB: "So the $10 emissivity question is: If we pretend that emissivity is a variable (i.e. we ignore the fact that it is a constant)"
IB: "As emissivity increases, temperature decreases"
IB: "The opposite of emissivity is albedo."
IB: "Emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind"
IB: "Blocking emissions is also a decrease of absorptivity"
IB: "You don't know the temperature of the Earth"
IB: "Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting"
IB: "The idea that DECREASING Emmisivity somehow INCREASES temperature is only purported by warmizombies who insist that Stefan-Boltzmann calculates temperature."
IB: "The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does."
IB: "The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone."
IB: "You can't trap energy"
IB: "My understanding of thermodynamics is excellent"
Night: "It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is."
IB: "Absorptivity and emissivity are always the same value"
IB: "CO2 will absorb frequencies all over the place."
IB: "Carbon dioxide, if it absorbs energy (it will absorb it in the form of electromagnetic energy, not high speed particles)"


Wake, help me out, does that work out to a "Yes" or a "No"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-06-2017 00:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


Wake wrote:
IB: " Emissivity and absorptivity are the same value"
IB: "So the $10 emissivity question is: If we pretend that emissivity is a variable (i.e. we ignore the fact that it is a constant)"
IB: "As emissivity increases, temperature decreases"
IB: "The opposite of emissivity is albedo."
IB: "Emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind"
IB: "Blocking emissions is also a decrease of absorptivity"
IB: "You don't know the temperature of the Earth"
IB: "Emissivity is the measure of a body's efficiency at absorbing *AND* emitting"
IB: "The idea that DECREASING Emmisivity somehow INCREASES temperature is only purported by warmizombies who insist that Stefan-Boltzmann calculates temperature."
IB: "The ENERGY profile of the atmosphere is a smooth curve. It doesn't have 'inversions' like the temperature profile does."
IB: "The cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion is the production and destruction of ozone."
IB: "You can't trap energy"
IB: "My understanding of thermodynamics is excellent"
Night: "It's all heat loss, dude. I think you have a distorted understanding of what 'heat' actually is."
IB: "Absorptivity and emissivity are always the same value"
IB: "CO2 will absorb frequencies all over the place."
IB: "Carbon dioxide, if it absorbs energy (it will absorb it in the form of electromagnetic energy, not high speed particles)"


Wake, help me out, does that work out to a "Yes" or a "No"?
.


It works out to you being wrong in every single quote. And your pal Night even understands what heat is better than you.
03-06-2017 00:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Wake wrote: It works out to you being wrong in every single quote. And your pal Night even understands what heat is better than you.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that I was wrong in every single quote and that Into the Night understands what heat is better than I do

Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-06-2017 01:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: It works out to you being wrong in every single quote. And your pal Night even understands what heat is better than you.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that I was wrong in every single quote and that Into the Night understands what heat is better than I do

Do you believe that certain atmospheric gases increase a planet's average global temperature given a constant energy source radiating through a vacuum?
.


Now can you suggest through your stupidity why you would ask a question like that when I have spent the last two years proving that it doesn't? That I even showed that ALL planets in our solar system act exactly the same way at the same atmospheric pressures regardless of atmospheric makeup?

At what point are you going to understand that you cannot fool anyone into believing that you know anything at all. You scream about the Stefan-Botlzmann law and then make the most absurd comments about it. You don't even understand simple math in which you can transpose terms and derive constants.

So don't be mad - just go away.
03-06-2017 04:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Wake wrote: Now can you suggest through your stupidity why you would ask a question like that when I have spent the last two years proving that it doesn't?

In all these recent posts in which I have asked this question, you really don't think it would have been much easier and quicker to just write "Yes"? Are you really in any position to refer to anyone else as "stupid"?

Wake wrote: At what point are you going to understand that you cannot fool anyone into believing that you know anything at all.

I can recognize "Yes/No" questions and they don't scare the bejeebees out of me.

Wake wrote: You scream about the Stefan-Botlzmann law and then make the most absurd comments about it.

Such as ...?

Wake wrote: You don't even understand simple math in which you can transpose terms and derive constants.

Aaaah, you're another mathematical incompetent who thinks he's a genius. You don't even understand independent vs. dependent variables.

Sit down.

Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
05-06-2017 01:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.
05-06-2017 08:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2017 17:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The Emissivity Question:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Emissivity313-08-2019 20:20
Climate Change Question1528-06-2019 06:48
Question for the Einsteins020-04-2019 17:09
Carbon Question from mostly ignorant skeptic (me)3206-02-2019 20:06
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact