Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 23

Page 23 of 28

13-06-2020 15:26
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: There's a lot that I don't think that they're stating what they mean. An example is that some parts of the Moon is over 200º F. Sure. The daytime side of the moon and the side of the international space station facing the sun get up to about 240º F (120º C), well beyond the boiling point of water at one bar. James___ wrote: If that's the surface material then that is not it's atmospheric temperature. How much atmosphere do you think the moon has? James___ wrote: And then they would be ignoring that surface material might actually be conserving that energy and not really radiating it. To what lunar surface material do you believe Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply? Do you know why the nighttime side of the moon gets really cold? I like to keep things simple. With the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, I'd say that it applies to electrical engineering. With the surface of the space station, you can show an outside source of energy, solar radiation. And with the Earth, we can say "greenhouse". We know the surface of the space station is not radiating heat from it's interior. If so, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant would suggest that it's really hot inside the space station. Yet people live in it, right? And with the Earth, the Van Allen radiation belts lower the temperature just as the shielding around the space station keeps it's interior from becoming very warm. This is why I do not apply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to celestial bodies. There might be a way to apply it but I don't think science has evolved that far yet as far as astrophysics goes. There is information we would need by taking measurements at those bodies on which to base any opinion or calculation.
13-06-2020 17:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	With this, I'll give you the reason why I "think" this matters. The Earth's spin or rotation on it's axis is slowing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/20/earths-rotation-is-mysteriously-slowing-down-experts-predict-uptick-in-2018-earthquakes/#415830bd6f24 Why I mention this is what if the Earth's magnetosphere which created the Van Allen radiation belts is weakening ever so slightly? Would that allow more solar radiation into our atmosphere? This is getting into astrophysics and it is known that the rate at which the Earth spins is cyclical. From here we'd need to get into environmental systems that could suggest that the Earth's spin has a complex system of feedback mechanisms that today would not be very well known. You know, like why there are more earthquakes, etc. Edited on 13-06-2020 17:23
13-06-2020 20:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	James___ wrote: With this, I'll give you the reason why I "think" this matters. The Earth's spin or rotation on it's axis is slowing. Yes, our ocean is causing that. James___ wrote: Why I mention this is what if the Earth's magnetosphere which created the Van Allen radiation belts is weakening ever so slightly? Would that allow more solar radiation into our atmosphere? If the magnetosphere is weakening then we can expect more solar particles to enter earth's atmosphere. Magnetic fields don't alter electromagnetic radiation. Only matter and other electromagnetic radiation does that. James___ wrote: This is getting into astrophysics and it is known that the rate at which the Earth spins is cyclical. I cringe at the phrase "It is known" because it is not. It is popularly speculated. It might very well be correct. It is not, however, known. The one thing under which we must operate is the law of conservation of momentum. Orbits can certainly change as long as momentum is conserved. If you start to get into momentum not being conserved then you have a red flag. James___ wrote: From here we'd need to get into environmental systems that could suggest that the Earth's spin has a complex system of feedback mechanisms that today would not be very well known. I cringe at the use of the term "feedback systems" because that almost invariably implies a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As long as you can show that entropy is always increasing you're in good shape. James___ wrote:You know, like why there are more earthquakes, etc. I wasn't aware that there are "more" earthquakes except to say that as they happen, that makes "more" of them. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-06-2020 23:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Magnetic fields don't alter electromagnetic radiation. Only matter and other electromagnetic radiation does that. You need to learn more about Van Allen radiation belts and what they do and how they work. But if you don't want to, that's up to you friend.
14-06-2020 00:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Magnetic fields don't alter electromagnetic radiation. Only matter and other electromagnetic radiation does that. You need to learn more about Van Allen radiation belts and what they do and how they work. But if you don't want to, that's up to you friend. The Van Allen belts do not alter electromagnetic radiation either. Electromagnetic radiation is not made of electrons. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

14-06-2020 01:50
keepit ★★★★★ (2962)	I always thought electric current creates a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field creates an electric current. I also thought the van allen belt was charged particles from the sun, with the resulting aurora borealis and aurora australis. The charged particles got there as a result of earth's magnetic field. Edited on 14-06-2020 01:57
14-06-2020 02:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: I always thought electric current creates a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field creates an electric current. I also thought the van allen belt was charged particles from the sun, with the resulting aurora borealis and aurora australis. The charged particles got there as a result of earth's magnetic field. The particles that create a borealis have a charge of about 8,000 volts. And they are probably why solar panels work. By the time they reach the surface, they've probably lost most of their charge. If rising sea levels and a slower rotation of the Earth goes together...
14-06-2020 05:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	keepit wrote: I always thought electric current creates a magnetic field Correct. Electric current, i.e. the flow of electrons in matter, creates a magnetic field. The sun is very hot and it strips electrons from nuclei, creating a powerful magnetic field as the electrons flow around in the sun like currents in our oceans. keepit wrote: and a moving magnetic field creates an electric current. Not exactly. A magnetic field acts on matter to cause electrons to move/flow ... which causes the electrical current. If there is no matter on which to act, the magnetic field cannot create any electric current. Neither of these is electromagnetic radiation. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2020 06:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: I always thought electric current creates a magnetic field Correct. Electric current, i.e. the flow of electrons in matter, creates a magnetic field. The sun is very hot and it strips electrons from nuclei, creating a powerful magnetic field as the electrons flow around in the sun like currents in our oceans. keepit wrote: and a moving magnetic field creates an electric current. Not exactly. A magnetic field acts on matter to cause electrons to move/flow ... which causes the electrical current. If there is no matter on which to act, the magnetic field cannot create any electric current. Neither of these is electromagnetic radiation. . Friend, and now you're not thinking. When you talk about how the Sun strips the shells from nuclei, that's the principle behind ITER and their using heavy water https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=48336 to generate electricity. This has nothing to do with the Earth or the Earth's magnetic field. What the Van Allen radiation belts do is because all energy is electromagnetic radiation unless you want to discuss plasma physics[url] https://www.nature.com/subjects/plasma-physics[/url] . That's an entirely different topic and has nothing to do with what's being discussed. If you think it does, please clarify how the Earth's magnetosphere applies to plasma physics. It does seem that you're trying to deflect because you want to change the subject to a field of physics that has nothing to do with this discussion. A start for you would be showing where the charged particles that the Van Allen radiation belts is plasma physics. Please read this link. It actually states "mega electron volts" for electrons. They also state "particle dynamics" and not highly energized ions which would be observed in plasma physics. Just saying you know, a minor detail. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JA025940
14-06-2020 09:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	James___ wrote: This has nothing to do with the Earth or the Earth's magnetic field. I believe I specified that it's what happens in the sun. I don't think I ever stated or implied that the earth was getting matter so hot that the electrons were being stripped away, creating strong magnetic forces. But if I did, please feel free to point that out. James__ wrote: It does seem that you're trying to deflect because you want to change the subject to a field of physics that has nothing to do with this discussion. I was responding to keepit's question. I wasn't deflecting keepit's question; I was answering it. Did you understand his question? In any event, what is your most pressing question? btw - ITER is intended to be a fusion reactor that will come online once the major powers who distrust each other can all agree on a host of sensitive and controversial issues and agree to fund their share ... i.e. it doesn't look like it's going to happen in my lifetime. Eight years ago, ITER was scheduled to become operational in five years. Guess what. Eight years later ITER is scheduled to come online in five years. Troubled ITER looks for new path Bedevilled by technical delays, labyrinthine decision-making and cost estimates that have soared from five to around fifteen billion euros, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project is saddled with a reputation as a money pit I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2020 11:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Are you saying that a sponge does not retain water? You are WRONG! You cannot store water in a spaghetti strainer! You're a moron for thinking otherwise. We don't actually disagree on this point so if it's your excuse to exit the debate, again, that's all it is, an excuse. Thermal energy is not permanently stored, permanently trapped, or anything like that in the atmosphere. Fourier didn't believe that and neither do I. It is there though, before it leaves to be replaced by new thermal energy which will also be there. So? You throwing in the towel IBD? "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
14-06-2020 17:23
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: This has nothing to do with the Earth or the Earth's magnetic field. I believe I specified that it's what happens in the sun. I don't think I ever stated or implied that the earth was getting matter so hot that the electrons were being stripped away, creating strong magnetic forces. But if I did, please feel free to point that out. James__ wrote: It does seem that you're trying to deflect because you want to change the subject to a field of physics that has nothing to do with this discussion. I was responding to keepit's question. I wasn't deflecting keepit's question; I was answering it. Did you understand his question? In any event, what is your most pressing question? In any event, what is your most pressing question? I don't have one that you can answer. With the strainer question that keepit brought up, if the flow of water into the strainer is equal in flow to the discharge rate of the strainer, it's water level would remain unchanged. Also, the Van Allen radiation belts do trap electromagnetic radiation. Both you and ITN stated that this did not happen. It is an interesting mind game that when you post wrong information and then ask if you can help gives the illusion that you are trying to help me. People go for this all of the time. As for our atmosphere, I am open to the possibility of a cumulative-effect. The amount of O2 in our atmosphere has decreased by 0.06%. While that doesn't seem like much, it is a highly reactive gas. And at the same time, there is less O2 in the atmosphere to support the Chapman cycle. And in a way, this could be like keepit's water flowing through a strainer metaphor. Edited on 14-06-2020 17:24
14-06-2020 22:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	tgoebbles: So? You throwing in the towel IBD? Shall I take that as your desperate admission that you have been WRONG! on every count? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2020 23:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles: So? You throwing in the towel IBD? Shall I take that as your desperate admission that you have been WRONG! on every count?. I can't force you to debate the issue.
15-06-2020 02:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	goebbles wrote: I can't force you to debate the issue. That's my line. I can't make you admit when you are WRONG! either. I can't make you support your stupid claims either. I can't prevent you from EVADING either. ... but I can have fun with you. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

15-06-2020 10:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: I can't make you admit when you are WRONG! either. You refused to identify what the supposed "violation of physics" is. So? Get on with it. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system. How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? ... because the manner in which you are violating physics ceases to matter the moment you violate physics in any manner. I still don't know what that means but you are clearly saying you spotted a violation of physics. So what was it? "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
15-06-2020 18:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	tgoebbles wrote: You refused to identify what the supposed "violation of physics" is. So? Get on with it. You have changed topics so frequently that you need to refresh my memory on the specific theory in question. tgoebbles wrote: I still don't know what that means but you are clearly saying you spotted a violation of physics. So what was it? In this particular example you refer to the atmosphere as "insulation." You are WRONG! You fail your exam. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-06-2020 23:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:You have changed topics so frequently that you need to refresh my memory on the specific theory in question. tmiddles wrote:How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? "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[/quote]
16-06-2020 01:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	keepit wrote: I always thought electric current creates a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field creates an electric current. It does. No wires in space between the Sun and Earth, dude. keepit wrote: I also thought the van allen belt was charged particles from the sun, with the resulting aurora borealis and aurora australis. The charged particles got there as a result of earth's magnetic field. Nope. The charged particles are from the Sun. Some are trapped by Earth's magnetic field. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-06-2020 01:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: I always thought electric current creates a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field creates an electric current. I also thought the van allen belt was charged particles from the sun, with the resulting aurora borealis and aurora australis. The charged particles got there as a result of earth's magnetic field. The particles that create a borealis have a charge of about 8,000 volts. And they are probably why solar panels work. By the time they reach the surface, they've probably lost most of their charge. If rising sea levels and a slower rotation of the Earth goes together... Nope. Just a few volts. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-06-2020 01:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles: So? You throwing in the towel IBD? Shall I take that as your desperate admission that you have been WRONG! on every count?. I can't force you to debate the issue. You are not debating. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-06-2020 01:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I can't make you admit when you are WRONG! either. You refused to identify what the supposed "violation of physics" is. So? Get on with it. RQAA tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system. How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? ... because the manner in which you are violating physics ceases to matter the moment you violate physics in any manner. I still don't know what that means but you are clearly saying you spotted a violation of physics. So what was it? RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2020 10:14
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:You have changed topics so frequently that you need to refresh my memory on the specific theory in question. tmiddles wrote:How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? "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
19-06-2020 17:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	tgoebbles wrote: How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? You are claiming that by violating Stefan-Boltzmann, additional usable energy remains for performing the work of heating the warmer solid surface. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2020 17:59
keepit ★★★★★ (2962)	IBD, You better start over on that. Doesn't make sense.
19-06-2020 18:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	keepit wrote: IBD, You better start over on that. Doesn't make sense. Oh, I forgot that you were reading it too. Here's your version: "Always read with proper lighting." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2020 19:09
gfm7175★★★★★ (3299)	keepit wrote: IBD, You better start over on that. Doesn't make sense. keepit, You better yeehaw your garden. Hoeing it is a thing of the past. And remember, Brawndo's got what plants crave; it's got electrolytes!
19-06-2020 22:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You have changed topics so frequently that you need to refresh my memory on the specific theory in question. How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced?[ RQAA. Mantra 20a2 The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2020 22:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	keepit wrote: IBD, You better start over on that. Doesn't make sense. RQAA. Mantra 20a2. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-06-2020 12:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? You are claiming that by violating Stefan-Boltzmann, additional usable energy remains for performing the work of heating the warmer solid surface. How is Stefan-Boltzmann violated? : I'll guess you mean by having a temperature at ground level which is higher than what the Earth is emitting into space. This doesn't violate SB because the ground level of Earth is not it's emitting surface. The "surface" of Earth is the collection of matter, primarily higher in the atmosphere, from which radiance emits out into space. "additional usable energy"?: No there is no additional energy. The only energy is from the Sun. That energy comes in at a fixed rate but it is NOT a fixed quantity. The 1st LTD argument that energy is created if more thermal energy is present in one configuration of matter over another is false. You have admitted as much recently is stating that: IBdaMann wrote: For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature. I know you think this is ONLY due to the ideal gas law and gravity but it still is true that there is more thermal energy present without additional energy. "[the atmosphere] ...heating the warmer solid surface."? No "heating" means to increase the temperature of something. There is absolutely heating of the solid surface and it's done by the Sun. The atmosphere (also heated by the sun directly and the warmer solid ground level both) has thermal energy present which reduces the heat of the solid ground level. This means that the solid ground level does not cool as rapidly. But this is also true of your model in which the ideal gas law is the explanation so how do you explain it? "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

23-06-2020 11:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	From this thread: link But it belongs here: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...VENUS ...exceeds the Solar Insolation ... How does a temperature exceed a Power? I'll explain: A--- A surface area with a given temperature will emit a given radiance as per Stefan Boltzmann. B--- The radiance from the Sun that hits a surface is based on it's distance from the Sun C--- If a surface where to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. D--- Midnight on Venus (as in where the Sun Don't Shine) has a higher ground level temp, ~470C, it emits more radiance, than the maximum radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun (high noon), 2649.18 W/m², which equates to ~192C. link link "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
23-06-2020 20:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced? You are claiming that by violating Stefan-Boltzmann, additional usable energy remains for performing the work of heating the warmer solid surface. How is Stefan-Boltzmann violated? : I'll guess you mean by having a temperature at ground level which is higher than what the Earth is emitting into space. Temperature is not emission. Light has no temperature. Mantras 20g...20a4...20a5...20b6... tmiddles wrote: This doesn't violate SB because the ground level of Earth is not it's emitting surface. Yes it is. So is every part of the atmosphere. All matter radiates light according to the Stefan Boltzmann law. Mantra 20b... tmiddles wrote: The "surface" of Earth is the collection of matter, primarily higher in the atmosphere, from which radiance emits out into space. ALL matter radiates. Mantra 20b...20a2... tmiddles wrote: "additional usable energy"?: No there is no additional energy. Lie. You are trying to add additional energy from nowhere. Mantra 20a1...15c.. tmiddles wrote: The only energy is from the Sun. That energy comes in at a fixed rate but it is NOT a fixed quantity. No one is making this argument. Mantra 16b...30... tmiddles wrote: The 1st LTD argument that energy is created if more thermal energy is present in one configuration of matter over another is false. The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't state this. Mantra 20a1... tmiddles wrote: You have admitted as much recently is stating that: IBdaMann wrote: For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature. I know you think this is ONLY due to the ideal gas law and gravity but it still is true that there is more thermal energy present without additional energy. Total thermal energy is not temperature. Mantras 20a4...20n... tmiddles wrote: "[the atmosphere] ...heating the warmer solid surface."? No "heating" means to increase the temperature of something. There is absolutely heating of the solid surface and it's done by the Sun. The atmosphere (also heated by the sun directly and the warmer solid ground level both) has thermal energy present which reduces the heat of the solid ground level. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again. Mantra 20a5... tmiddles wrote: This means that the solid ground level does not cool as rapidly. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap light. Mantras 20a2...20b3...20b5...20e3...20e2...20e1...20g...20w2... tmiddles wrote: But this is also true of your model in which the ideal gas law is the explanation so how do you explain it? He already did. RQAA. Mantra 29. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Redefinitions. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted spam... The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-06-2020 11:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: How is Stefan-Boltzmann violated? Light has no temperature. Huh?? Could you sound less like a robot and say what you mean? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: This doesn't violate SB because the ground level of Earth is not it's emitting surface. Yes it is. So is every part of the atmosphere. All matter radiates light according to the Stefan Boltzmann law. I should have said the ground level is just partially. If radiance doesn't leave earth and head of into space then the matter that emitted it is not part of the emitting surface of Earth. Only some radiance from the ground makes it through the atmosphere without being absorbed by gas along the way. A cave with a river of hot lava flowing through it has zero molecules in it which are part of the emitting surface of Earth. "[the ground] radiates ....thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy." NASA Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You...admitted: IBdaMann wrote:...the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher ... ...more thermal energy present without additional energy. Total thermal energy is not temperature. Temperature comes from thermal energy though. So what are you saying? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...The atmosphere...reduces the heat of the solid ground level. You are ignoring Kirchhoff's law again. "In heat transfer, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium. A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy." Nope not violated at all. Our understanding is that past the outer "surface" of the sun, further down into "The photosphere - the visible surface of the Sun - has a temperature of about 6000 degrees C. However, the temperature increases very steeply from 6000 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona," NASA Kirchhoff, as with SB, describes what the emitting surface does. I can be in a cave with a river oh hot lava and contemplate Kirchoff and the radiance coming off the lava. The ground level of Earth is partially "inside" of the Earth if you are considering the entire planets emission of radiance into space. Into the Night wrote: You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap light. It is present. No one said it was trapped forever. "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 24-06-2020 11:49
24-06-2020 18:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: How is Stefan-Boltzmann violated? Light has no temperature. Huh?? Could you sound less like a robot and say what you mean? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: This doesn't violate SB because the ground level of Earth is not it's emitting surface. Yes it is. So is every part of the atmosphere. All matter radiates light according to the Stefan Boltzmann law. I should have said the ground level is just partially. Wrong. Mantras 20b5...20a2... tmiddles wrote: If radiance doesn't leave earth and head of into space then the matter that emitted it is not part of the emitting surface of Earth. You cannot trap light. Mantra 20b5...20a2... tmiddles wrote: Only some radiance from the ground makes it through the atmosphere without being absorbed by gas along the way. You cannot trap light. Mantras 20b5..20a2... tmiddles wrote: A cave with a river of hot lava flowing through it has zero molecules in it which are part of the emitting surface of Earth. Irrelevant. Mantra 20b4...24... tmiddles wrote: "[the ground] radiates ....thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy." NASA Manufactured number. False authority fallacy. Mantras 25g...4f...4b... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You...admitted: IBdaMann wrote:...the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher ... ...more thermal energy present without additional energy. Total thermal energy is not temperature. Temperature comes from thermal energy though. So what are you saying? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...The atmosphere...reduces the heat of the solid ground level. You are ignoring Kirchhoff's law again. "In heat transfer, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium. Wrong Kirchoff's law. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law of energy. Mantra20b5. tmiddles wrote: A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy." Nope not violated at all. Mantra 20b5. tmiddles wrote: Our understanding is that past the outer "surface" of the sun, further down into "The photosphere - the visible surface of the Sun - has a temperature of about 6000 degrees C. Manufactured number. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy. You are ignoring reflection and transmission again. Mantras 20b1...20e3...20e2...20g...20q5...20w1...20w3...20w4...20x... tmiddles wrote: However, the temperature increases very steeply from 6000 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona," NASA Irrelevant. Mantra 4b...4f... tmiddles wrote: Kirchhoff, as with SB, describes what the emitting surface does. I can be in a cave with a river oh hot lava and contemplate Kirchoff and the radiance coming off the lava. The ground level of Earth is partially "inside" of the Earth if you are considering the entire planets emission of radiance into space. Irrelevant. Mantra 20b4... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap light. It is present. No one said it was trapped forever. You cannot trap light at all. There is no sequence. Mantras 20b3...20v...20a2...20g...20w1...20w4... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Calling upon the Holy Name of NASA. Contrivances. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-06-2020 04:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: You are ignoring Kirchoff's law of energy. What? That's for electronics isn't it?
25-06-2020 07:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are ignoring Kirchoff's law of energy. What? That's for electronics isn't it? Nope. All energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-06-2020 11:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are ignoring Kirchoff's law of energy. What? That's for electronics isn't it? Nope. All energy. This?: Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) is Kirchhoff's second law that deals with the conservation of energy around a closed circuit path.
25-06-2020 20:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are ignoring Kirchoff's law of energy. What? That's for electronics isn't it? Nope. All energy. This?: Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) is Kirchhoff's second law that deals with the conservation of energy around a closed circuit path. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-06-2020 21:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are ignoring Kirchoff's law of energy. What? That's for electronics isn't it? Nope. All energy. This?: Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) is Kirchhoff's second law that deals with the conservation of energy around a closed circuit path. RQAA. No you have NEVER answered that and it remains entirely unclear what you mean. The only "Energy" that Kirchhoff's conservation law is applied to is voltage. If you mean conservation of energy then you should just site the 1st LTD. It's becoming clear that you're simply dodging everything here ITN. This:"Kirchhoff's voltage law states that for a closed loop series path the algebraic sum of all the voltages around any closed loop in a circuit is equal to zero." has nothing to do with the topic. Edited on 25-06-2020 21:02

Page 23 of 28

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

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	390	06-11-2023 09:38
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?	129	19-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof	5	09-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus	88	26-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury	4	18-09-2019 22:37