Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 20 of 20<<<181920
12-03-2020 04:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:...(addition of area term * inverse square law term)...
It's not clear AT ALL what your commentary is but the math is now perfect.

Nope. Same kinds of errors.
tmiddles wrote:
There is nothing at all that is being summed or added, there is no "addition":

Irrelevant.
tmiddles wrote:
σT^4*4πR^2*r^2/2D^2=σt^4*4πr^2

The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter.

Nope. It doesn't.
tmiddles wrote:
In both the case of the Sun and the object that's a sphere. So of course you use 4πR^2 in:
σT^4*4πR^2
that is simply:
σT^4*A

Math error: Unit error.
tmiddles wrote:
Every one of the Math errors you thought you found (with the exception of the extra π I'd already caught) was actually your error.

No, they are YOUR errors. YOU made them.
tmiddles wrote:
I see no rebuttal or admission of that.

Mantra 29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 04:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter.

Nope. It doesn't.
Yes it does! It's PER AREA. If it didn't then a Sun the size of a basketball would have the same energy output as our sun does.

Let's have a look:


When "A" is not included it is understood that it is per M^2. So you have to know how many meters squared there are:


So your are wrong! It makes no sense not to include area.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
In both the case of the Sun and the object that's a sphere. So of course you use 4πR^2 in:
σT^4*4πR^2
that is simply:
σT^4*A

Math error: Unit error.
So what are you saying the error is? That doesn't even include units of measure? I think you're being intentionally vague because you got nothing. THE MATH IS PERFECT

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Every one of the Math errors you thought you found (with the exception of the extra π I'd already caught) was actually your error.

No, they are YOUR errors. YOU made them.
And what errors are your citing? I refuted everyone of those you claimed and showed it was your error not mine.

How about this one:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...t^2*2=T^2*R*(1/D)
Divide both sides by 2
t^2=T^2*R(1/D)(1/2)

Math error. You failed to divide T^2 by 2.
No it's right, see the 2 on the left divided out and the "* 1/2" now on the right. *1/2 is dividing by 2.

You still saying that's wrong? ALL of your notes were wrong I just figured I'd pick one.

Maybe the only think that makes you and IBD crazy is your weird Trumpesque inability to admit you are wrong. I'm wrong constantly, every day, about you name it. I have no problem admitting that and moving on. But you guys say day is night and just hold on with a death grip. It's sad.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 12-03-2020 04:43
12-03-2020 04:54
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
Do Ya'all know what would be an interesting experiment? To put something like a solar panel on the Moon. There's a reason I'd find it interesting. For about 1/2 of its orbit around the Earth, contact with it wouldn't be possible because there would be no line of sight for signals to be transmitted to the Earth.
What that would do is measure solar IR. I'm not sure if it's ever been measured using a method like that.

BTW, if they put the same set up on the Dark Side of the Moon, they could find out if the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts at 21,00° Kelvin radiates any energy. This is a kind of Trust but Verify kind of thing.

FYI, the Moon is about 10 times further away from the Earth than the outside of the Van Allen radiation belts.
Edited on 12-03-2020 05:30
12-03-2020 06:01
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
The Van Allen radiation belt gets as hot as 21,000º kelvin and not 21,00º kelvin. And if it radiates any energy, it's said that neither it nor the Sun's corona does in a way that's meaningful.

p.s. If the Sun's surface is 6,000° C. then the Sun's gravity is generating that heat. The Sun's corona probably lacks the density of the Sun so its energy by become known in a different way.
Basically how much energy does it take to heat rock vs a layer of the atmosphere?
Edited on 12-03-2020 06:17
12-03-2020 06:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras TMSa7...7...


No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 06:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
James___ wrote:
Do Ya'all know what would be an interesting experiment? To put something like a solar panel on the Moon.

Several are already there. They operate the experiments left behind on the Moon by the astronauts.
James___ wrote:
There's a reason I'd find it interesting. For about 1/2 of its orbit around the Earth, contact with it wouldn't be possible because there would be no line of sight for signals to be transmitted to the Earth.
If the solar panel operated a radio, that is true.
James___ wrote:
What that would do is measure solar IR.
I'm not sure if it's ever been measured using a method like that.
Solar panels don't measure IR. While some IR does produce some electricity in a solar panel, most of it comes from visible light.
James___ wrote:
BTW, if they put the same set up on the Dark Side of the Moon, they could find out if the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts at 21,00° Kelvin radiates any energy. This is a kind of Trust but Verify kind of thing.

There is no dark side of the Moon. Day/night cycles cover every part of the Moon's surface. Any experiment set up on the far side of the Moon would not see the belts.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 10:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...How about this one:...

No arguments presented. RQAA.

No coherence presented ITN. I have been responsive to your post and made both arguments and asked direct questions where you've been unclear. You are simply ducking the debate.

I guess when someone defeats you in a debate and points out how wrong you are you call it "preaching" are run away.

R to the Q to the A A
Edited on 12-03-2020 10:29
12-03-2020 11:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 22...lie...29...29...10 (RQAA<->debate)...7...23...17...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 11:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 22...lie...29...29...10 (RQAA<->debate)...7...23...17...

No argument presented. RQAA.
There are no math errors ITN. You are wrong.
12-03-2020 14:59
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
This is from NASA.

>> It has been known for decades that the correct explanation for why aurora occur involves distant regions of the magnetic field of Earth in the opposite direction from the Sun. As solar storms disturb Earth's magnetic field, this field rearranges itself and converts some of its stored energy into the kinetic energy of fast-moving particles. These particles, partly from the Sun and partly from Earth, flow inwards towards Earth along the polar magnetic field lines. As they encounter the ionosphere, they are boosted in energy to 6,000 volts or more, and then collide with nitrogen and oxygen atoms to produce the auroral light. There is no direct entry of solar particles into the polar regions to create the night-time aurora. Also, solar flares do not cause aurora either. <<
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/educator/Aurora79.html

Particles are charged to 6,000 volts or more. That's a lot of energy. If the current is 2 amps, then that's 12,000 watts or more per particle. And the energy comes from the ionosphere.
BTW, the ionosphere is inside the Van Allen radiation belts. The inner radiation belts is about 400 miles above but consider the lights happen when the pole has the least amount of sunlight......
This is from visit Senja;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1792618197423232/permalink/2947644855253888/
Edited on 12-03-2020 15:10
12-03-2020 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 23...25...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 22:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter.

Nope. It doesn't.
Yes it does! It's PER AREA.

Into the Night is correct because you made a technical error. Yes, to find the POWER output you need the AREA ... but you wrote ENERGY.

Change the word ENERGY to POWER and I bet he'll agree with you on that particular point... because he accepts 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
12-03-2020 23:52
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter.

Nope. It doesn't.
Yes it does! It's PER AREA.

Into the Night is correct because you made a technical error. Yes, to find the POWER output you need the AREA ... but you wrote ENERGY.

Change the word ENERGY to POWER and I bet he'll agree with you on that particular point... because he accepts Stefan-Boltzmann.


.



You guys need to learn a little something about atmospheric chemistry. This is funny

I just figured out something that they know happens but can't quite explain the mechanics. It also explains how particles from the Sun heats our atmosphere.

Kind of doubt I'll take the time to do the math. To get the details right it might take years to fine tune the equation so it's applicable to planets with an atmosphere. And yep, it does involve tweaking gravity a little. It has more than just linear potential. Enjoy
13-03-2020 02:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote: You guys need to learn a little something about atmospheric chemistry. This is funny

Chemistry always cracks me up! Nothing is funnier than tests that involve watching paint dry, water boil or plants grow ... except maybe verifying induction proofs ... but that kind of goes without saying.

James___ wrote: I just figured out something that they know happens but can't quite explain the mechanics.

Actually, I talked to them just yesterday and they performed a full deep-dive into the mechanics. You just missed it. They got it all on video and you can still probably catch the webinar on YouTube.

James___ wrote: It also explains how particles from the Sun heats our atmosphere.

It turns out that it's the other way around. Who knew? The atmosphere cools the sun's particles! I was just as surprised as you are.

James___ wrote: Kind of doubt I'll take the time to do the math.

I normally just do the crossword puzzle and the sudoku.

James___ wrote: To get the details right it might take years to fine tune the equation ...

... or a crapload of crossword puzzles and sudokus.

James___ wrote: And yep, it does involve tweaking gravity a little.

It's always easier to modify the software and to tweak gravity than to go back and properly redesign the hardware.

James___ wrote: It has more than just linear potential.

They never live up to their linear potential.





.


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
13-03-2020 02:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:...I bet he'll agree with you on that particular point... because he accepts Stefan-Boltzmann.
ITN seems to have quit.

What about you IBD?

Did you find any math errors in my last derivation of the "SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMPERATURE"?
Edited on 13-03-2020 02:51
13-03-2020 03:07
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: You guys need to learn a little something about atmospheric chemistry. This is funny

Chemistry always cracks me up! Nothing is funnier than tests that involve watching paint dry, water boil or plants grow ... except maybe verifying induction proofs ... but that kind of goes without saying.

James___ wrote: I just figured out something that they know happens but can't quite explain the mechanics.

Actually, I talked to them just yesterday and they performed a full deep-dive into the mechanics. You just missed it. They got it all on video and you can still probably catch the webinar on YouTube.

James___ wrote: It also explains how particles from the Sun heats our atmosphere.

It turns out that it's the other way around. Who knew? The atmosphere cools the sun's particles! I was just as surprised as you are.

James___ wrote: Kind of doubt I'll take the time to do the math.

I normally just do the crossword puzzle and the sudoku.

James___ wrote: To get the details right it might take years to fine tune the equation ...

... or a crapload of crossword puzzles and sudokus.

James___ wrote: And yep, it does involve tweaking gravity a little.

It's always easier to modify the software and to tweak gravity than to go back and properly redesign the hardware.

James___ wrote: It has more than just linear potential.

They never live up to their linear potential.





.



Thanks for sharing a picture of yourself. Now I know who I'm "talking" with.


p.s., the SB constant only applies to TB12. It does not apply to celestial bodies.
That's because TB12 has more rings than Saturn because of TB12's constant SB activity.
13-03-2020 04:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote:p.s., the SB constant only applies to TB12. It does not apply to celestial bodies.

Spot on. You've heard Into the Night and I emphasize repeatedly that Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to earth, celestial bodies, molecules or pancakes. The science is clear that you need to tweak gravity over many years and avoid doing the math. Voila!


.


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
13-03-2020 15:36
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:p.s., the SB constant only applies to TB12. It does not apply to celestial bodies.

Spot on. You've heard Into the Night and I emphasize repeatedly that Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to earth, celestial bodies, molecules or pancakes. The science is clear that you need to tweak gravity over many years and avoid doing the math. Voila!


.



I guess people like you and tmiddles have defend your position. I mean if most of the heat in our atmosphere is actually coming from the ionosphere that would really screw things up for you, right?
This is referring to the Earth obviously;
Assuming the Earth is a black body and has a temperature of 300 K, how much energy is it emitting?

Energy emitted = [1] [5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4] [ 300 K]4

= 459 W m-2

Energy coming from the Sun;
T = 6000 K

Energy emitted = [1] [5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4] [ 6000 K]4

= 73,483,200 W m-2

Using the inverse^2 principle, the wattage that reaches the Earth = 5,858 w/m^2.

Our solar constant is only 1,334 w/m^2 and the Moon's is 1367.6 w/m^2.
Since the Moon does orbit the Earth, it's average solar constant would be about the same as the Earth's.
It's okay IBDM, I know you'll deflect.
13-03-2020 18:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 17...29...29...25...20b...22 (solar absorption temperature)...25k...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2020 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
James___ wrote:...deleted Mantras 20e2...20d...25k...20b2...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-03-2020 18:44
14-03-2020 07:40
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(113)
this is my office, Jamie.

and i have the famous proposition, for you.

make yourself a buck, like the wage out there, on that street you love so much.

what do i do? why do i need you?that's in the contract right there, READ IT.

{
{
{
{
{
{gap}
}
}
}
}
}

that's a real cheque Jamie.

we get to work, I'll be Batman, you Robin. that, is bad gotham city.

no botches, no screw-ups, just do your job.




i wish i could help you, but i'm kinda tied down here. ye?
14-03-2020 16:08
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
this is my office, Jamie.

and i have the famous proposition, for you.

make yourself a buck, like the wage out there, on that street you love so much.

what do i do? why do i need you?that's in the contract right there, READ IT.

{
{
{
{
{
{gap}
}
}
}
}
}

that's a real cheque Jamie.

we get to work, I'll be Batman, you Robin. that, is bad gotham city.

no botches, no screw-ups, just do your job.




i wish i could help you, but i'm kinda tied down here. ye?



I actually want to work with a German scientist on an experiment. Kind of why understanding some of what I know is important. Without a solid hypothesis I'd just sound like an idiot, right? This is where if I were to work with someone, it would be a risk I don't need to take. They might want me to do things their way.
This is where I should probably start going over the math. It does need to convey a solid hypothesis. Otherwise I'd look like an idiot, right?
14-03-2020 17:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote: Kind of why understanding some of what I know is important.

Why don't you shoot for understanding ALL of what you know?

James___ wrote: Without a solid hypothesis I'd just sound like an idiot, right?

The scientific method doesn't care how flimsy your hypothesis is, it will break it and help you make it stronger ... until you have actual science.

James___ wrote:This is where if I were to work with someone, it would be a risk I don't need to take.

A risk to you or to him?

James___ wrote: They might want me to do things their way.

... like follow the scientific method?


.


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
14-03-2020 19:48
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(113)
you just saved me all the time......of goin thru the write-ups!!!!!!


now i know what i'm working with, or with who, for my ambition and goals.'


why do i drink my coffee quietly, b'coz i have nothing to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Page 20 of 20<<<181920





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?12919-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
▲ 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