Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 24

Page 24 of 28

25-06-2020 21:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]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. tmiddles wrote: The only "Energy" that Kirchhoff's conservation law is applied to is voltage. Voltage is not energy. Kirchoff's law applies to all energy. tmiddles wrote: If you mean conservation of energy then you should just site the 1st LTD. Kirchoff's law is based on the conservation of energy law, dumbass. Just as the 1st law of thermodynamics. You ignore all three. tmiddles wrote: It's becoming clear that you're simply dodging everything here ITN. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science. tmiddles wrote: 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. WRONG. It applies to all energy. Voltage is not 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 21:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: WRONG. You state what law you are referring to. Saying "Kirchhoff's Law" remains entirely unclear. He has a lot of them and none of them seem relevant.
25-06-2020 21:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: WRONG. You state what law you are referring to. Saying "Kirchhoff's Law" remains entirely unclear. He has a lot of them and none of them seem relevant. 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 23:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	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. You are an idiot. I've been explaining Kirchoff's energy law for as long as you have been on this board. It's the one you and keepit keep screwing up. Moron. . 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
26-06-2020 13:21
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...I've been explaining Kirchoff's energy law for as long as ... And did you have an explanation for how I got this wrong? You didn't respond to it in the other thread but this is a more appropriate place so?: 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 were 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 I have no idea what ITN's objection is do you have one 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 Edited on 26-06-2020 13:22

26-06-2020 18:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: 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 Am wondering if CO2 increases atmospheric pressure as well. Basically is it 92 times denser than 78% N2 and 21% O2 and 1% argon as an average value? The atmospheric pressure of Venus needs to be accounted for as well. The Earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s while Venus' is 8.87 m/s. It has less gravity. As they say at NASA, Houston, I think we have a problem. I do apologize for the interruption. You and your friends should ignore me. I'm just no fun at parties. Edited on 26-06-2020 18:53
26-06-2020 22:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I've been explaining Kirchoff's energy law for as long as ... And did you have an explanation for how I got this wrong? You didn't respond to it in the other thread but this is a more appropriate place so?: RQAA. Spamming. tmiddles wrote: 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. ...and the Sun is a lot hotter than Venus. tmiddles wrote: B--- The radiance from the Sun that hits a surface is based on it's distance from the Sun WRONG. It is also based on the size of the body. tmiddles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. Photons have no temperature. Mantras 20g...20q5... tmiddles wrote: 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. Photons have not temperature Mantras 20g...20q5... You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantras 20a1... The Sun is hotter than Venus. You are conveniently making up numbers in a contrived example and calling it mathematics. Mantras 20e3...20b...20a1...20g...20q1...20q2...20q3...20q5...20w1...20w4...25g...25f... tmiddles wrote: I have no idea what ITN's objection is do you have one IBD? RQAA. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Spamming. 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
26-06-2020 22:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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 Am wondering if CO2 increases atmospheric pressure as well. Basically is it 92 times denser than 78% N2 and 21% O2 and 1% argon as an average value? The atmospheric pressure of Venus needs to be accounted for as well. The Earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s while Venus' is 8.87 m/s. It has less gravity. As they say at NASA, Houston, I think we have a problem. I do apologize for the interruption. You and your friends should ignore me. I'm just no fun at parties. CO2 is just mass, like everything else in the atmosphere. Mass doesn't increase atmospheric pressure beyond what the pressure already is. You can't create mass out of nothing. 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
27-06-2020 01:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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 Am wondering if CO2 increases atmospheric pressure as well. Basically is it 92 times denser than 78% N2 and 21% O2 and 1% argon as an average value? The atmospheric pressure of Venus needs to be accounted for as well. The Earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s while Venus' is 8.87 m/s. It has less gravity. As they say at NASA, Houston, I think we have a problem. I do apologize for the interruption. You and your friends should ignore me. I'm just no fun at parties. CO2 is just mass, like everything else in the atmosphere. Mass doesn't increase atmospheric pressure beyond what the pressure already is. You can't create mass out of nothing. And yet here we are.
27-06-2020 07:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tgoebbles wrote:And did you have an explanation for how I got this wrong? Absolutely. You never got it right. In fact, you mocked me as I tried to explain it to you. You kept insisting that I was "making it up." May times I tried to explain the difference between absorptivity/radiativity (of substances/materials) vs. emissivity (bodies) but you would have none of it. So, you are welcome to do a search in Climate-Debate and to read up. How you got it wrong is all there. tgoebbles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. See bold text. Radiance is not a temperature. You know that. . 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
27-06-2020 23:13
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. See bold text. Radiance is not a temperature. You know that. . That's because it's heat.
28-06-2020 04:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. See bold text. Radiance is not a temperature. You know that. . That's because it's heat. Look, we all know the mechanics of Global Warming and Climate Change. . 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
28-06-2020 05:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. See bold text. Radiance is not a temperature. You know that. . That's because it's heat. Look, we all know the mechanics of Global Warming and Climate Change. . You can't win this one. Am sorry. Like they say, you can't have winter without summer. Bikini babes or snow bunnies? Kind of where liking both helps
30-06-2020 09:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	tmiddles wrote: 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 were 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 IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. See bold text. Radiance is not a temperature. You know that. Yes I'm not saying that radiance is temperature. I'm saying that an object can be in equilibrium with the radiance it is receiving (same radiance in as out) and that the objects emitting surface would have a temperature that would correspond to that radiance. "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
30-06-2020 10:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tgoebbles wrote: Yes I'm not saying that radiance is temperature. I'm saying that an object can be in equilibrium with the radiance it is receiving (same radiance in as out) and that the objects emitting surface would have a temperature that would correspond to that radiance. So here's the deal ... what you are saying NOW is "Stefan-Boltzmann." Well done. That doesn't earn you any bonus points but it does garner you an honorable mention. What you wrote before claimed that a temperature is equivalent to a radiance. tgoebbles wrote:C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. So you now officially recognize Stefan-Boltzmann. Great. Do you still claim, say, that the earth increases the temperature of the sun (just less than the sun increases the temperature of the earth), or have you abandoned your "net flow" argument? . 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

30-06-2020 11:20
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	[img][/img] Is this real Edited on 30-06-2020 11:21
30-06-2020 11:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	duncan61 wrote: [img][/img] Is this real I don't think you inserted the hyperlink. . 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
30-06-2020 11:28
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I really need help doing pictures.Any suggestions
30-06-2020 11:50
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I need to shrink the pictures to less than 2MB
30-06-2020 14:22
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	duncan61 wrote: I need to shrink the pictures to less than 2MB duncan61
30-06-2020 22:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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 were 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 IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: C--- If a surface were to absorb that radiance and emit the same quantity it would be at an equivalent temperature to the solar radiance it is receiving. See bold text. Radiance is not a temperature. You know that. Yes I'm not saying that radiance is temperature. Yes you are. tmiddles wrote: I'm saying that an object can be in equilibrium with the radiance it is receiving (same radiance in as out) Radiance doesn't go inward. Light is not temperature or thermal energy. Mantras 20g. tmiddles wrote: and that the objects emitting surface would have a temperature that would correspond to that radiance. Which is the same as saying light is temperature. No. You are wrong. Mantras 20g...20a2...20q1...20q2...20q3...20q5...23d... No argument presented. Denial of science. Semantics fallacy. 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
02-07-2020 05:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Do you still claim, say, that the earth increases the temperature of the sun (just less than the sun increases the temperature of the earth), or have you abandoned your "net flow" argument? I can't see why radiance doesn't come to the sun from Earth, that radiance that was converted from thermal energy on Earth will make it's way to the Sun and be absorbed. Pretty hard to get up close to that event of course. The "net flow" of radiance is as true as ever. Pierre Provost's discovery from 1791 has yet to be proven false. However discussing that is side track from the demonstration below: So? : tmiddles wrote: 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 were 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 Venus has a higher ground level temperature than the maximum possible equilibrium temp. You see a problem with how I broke that down? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm saying that an object can be in equilibrium with the radiance it is receiving (same radiance in as out) Radiance doesn't go inward. I have no idea what you're talking about ITN. I didn't say "inward". I'm simply saying that the radiance which is received by the object equals the radiance leaving the object. "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
02-07-2020 08:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Do you still claim, say, that the earth increases the temperature of the sun (just less than the sun increases the temperature of the earth), or have you abandoned your "net flow" argument? I can't see why radiance doesn't come to the sun from Earth, Radiance doesn't travel. tmiddles wrote: that radiance that was converted from thermal energy on Earth will make it's way to the Sun and be absorbed. Mantras 20a2...20q1...20q2...20q3...20q5... Radiance doesn't travel. You can't heat a warmer object using a colder one. tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20g...22e...20a2...15a...29... Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm saying that an object can be in equilibrium with the radiance it is receiving (same radiance in as out) Radiance doesn't go inward. I have no idea what you're talking about ITN. I didn't say "inward". I'm simply saying that the radiance which is received by the object equals the radiance leaving the object. Radiance does not go inward. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Buzzword fallacies. 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
03-07-2020 12:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Radiance doesn't travel. Sure does. At the speed of light in fact! Because you see ITN, you have taught us all that:link Into the Night wrote:... Radiance is light, ... Into the Night wrote:You can't heat a warmer object using a colder one. I never said you could. You love to try and change that one. A warmer object can absorb the radiance from a cooler object. "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
03-07-2020 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Radiance doesn't travel. Sure does. At the speed of light in fact! Radiance is not light. tmiddles wrote: Because you see ITN, you have taught us all that:link Into the Night wrote:... Radiance is light, ... Quoting out of context again. Radiance is not light. Mantra 16...10. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You can't heat a warmer object using a colder one. I never said you could. Yes you did, and you continue to do so, liar. tmiddles wrote: You love to try and change that one. I am not changing anything, liar. tmiddles wrote: A warmer object can absorb the radiance from a cooler object. Radiance isn't absorbed. It doesn't travel inward. It is not light. No argument presented. Word salad. Semantics fallacy. Denial of science. 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
03-07-2020 21:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Radiance is not light. tmiddles wrote: Because you see ITN, you have taught us all that:link Into the Night wrote:... Radiance is light, ... Quoting out of context... If your double talk was defensible at all you could offer an explanation. You are simply full of it. link Into the Night wrote: You can measure radiance by measuring light. Radiance is light. link Into the Night wrote: Blackbody radiance is light emitted by vibrating molecules due to temperature. Into the Night wrote: Radiance isn't absorbed. It doesn't travel inward. It is not light. link Into the Night wrote:...radiant heating ONLY occurs if the light emitted due to blackbody radiance is absorbed and results in thermal energy in some other mass. Light in and of itself is not heat, although it can be a means of heating. link Into the Night wrote: Radiation can indeed be the flow of thermal energy, though not directly. Radiant heat is one form of heating. It is heat if and only if the radiance is absorbed by another substance. Light that is not absorbed is not heat. Light itself is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy, but light can also be heat. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: A warmer object can absorb the radiance from a cooler object. Into the Night wrote:You can't heat a warmer object using a colder one. I am not changing anything, liar. The statements are not the same. Note how the words are all different (a tell tail sign it's been changed). Edited on 03-07-2020 21:40
03-07-2020 21:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted misquotes....lies...Mantras 15a...15b...4c...4a...30... No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. 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
03-07-2020 22:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tgoebbles wrote:I can't see why radiance doesn't come to the sun from Earth, Analyzing your error would be a great place to start. Do you see why thermal energy doesn't flow to the sun from the earth? tgoebbles wrote: The "net flow" of radiance is as true as ever. This is just an example of you refusing to admit that you were WRONG and refusing to admit that you learned here on Climate-Debte that thermal energy absolutely follows thermodynamics and that all the there is no "net flow" of thermal energy. When this topic began, your position was that thermal energy held a net flow and you merely referenced electromagnetic energy as justification. Fast forward to today, after you have realized that you were entirely WRONG! on the matter and you are trying to claim that you were only ever talking about electromagnetic radiation, because you are too dishonest and too much of an intellectual coward ... and far too petty to admit that you were mistaken. Why is that? Because you did not come here to learn as you initially feigned. You came here to preach your WACKY religion that is based on HATRED and intolerance and that targets the scientifically illiterate morons of the world. So now that we can close this topic out, you can stop raving about electromagnetic energy and start raving about something else, like how you have already answered all the questions posed to you in the thread you will not touch. So, why are you an anarchist? Why are you supportive of the violent overthrow of governments? . 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
03-07-2020 22:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote:I can't see why radiance doesn't come to the sun from Earth, Analyzing your error would be a great place to start. There is another topic for that IBD. net-thermal-radiation Unless your desire is to be sidetracked away from the topic here why don't you respond to it? Nothing below deals with why Venus is so hot it simply describes the differences: tmiddles wrote: 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 were 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 Venus has a higher ground level temperature than the maximum possible equilibrium temp. You see a problem with how I broke that down? Into the Night wrote:...misquotes.... I linked to each post you made ITN. I don't change quotes. "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
03-07-2020 23:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 15a...15b...10g...15a...15g...25g...20q1...20q2...20q3...20a2...29...30...lie... No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. Denial of science. RQAA. 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

03-07-2020 23:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tgoebbles wrote: Nothing below deals with why Venus is so hot it simply describes the differences: Analyzing your error would be a great place to start. This has been answered countless times. Countless. Venus' proximity to the sun, along with the Ideal Gas law, explains everything you want to know, including why you are not omniscient and why Global Warming is a fugged-up religion based on HATRED and intolerance. ... and you have never taken responsibility for having mistakenly treated electromagnetic radiation as having a temperature. Only matter can have temperature. It's like you are getting stupider by the day. That's apparently what happens when you REFUSE to learn ... which is what results when you have others doing your thinking for you ... which is what happens when you are gullible and fall victim to the cognitive corruption of Marxist ideologies. Issue closed. . 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
04-07-2020 00:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:Venus' proximity to the sun, along with the Ideal Gas law, explains everything you want to know,... Like I said we aren't even talking about why yet, just establishing what we are even looking at. The dark of night on Venus at ground level has a far higher temperature than what matches the maximum solar radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun is explained, in your view, by the ideal gas law. OK cool. So since you accept that the above is true then we can review your objections based on Planck's Law, Stefan-Boltzmann and the 1st and 2nd LTD. You see if someone makes a claim, or proposes a law of science, and it is disproven, this is how we make scientific progress in clearing away our errors. So let's take a look at Planck's Law as you have envoked it. Layed out here: Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law by IBD/ITN: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53548 link IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: When people say that the radiance out to space decreases and the radiance back to Earth increases they are not suggesting that greenhouse gases are increasing in temperature and yet decreasing in radiance. What they are saying is that "greenhouse gases" increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space. This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law. IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote:I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law. Irrespective of this not actually happening, you nonetheless claim that: 1. Earth's atmospheric temperature increases 2. Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases That is a direct violation of Planck's Law. You cannot resolve this through any convolution of radiation of any individual photons. Now you are clearly claiming that the radiance of a planet out into space must match it's ground level temperature. This is obviously not true. "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
04-07-2020 01:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Venus' proximity to the sun, along with the Ideal Gas law, explains everything you want to know,... Like I said we aren't even talking about why yet, just establishing what we are even looking at. The dark of night on Venus at ground level has a far higher temperature than what matches the maximum solar radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun is explained, in your view, by the ideal gas law. OK cool. So since you accept that the above is true then we can review your objections based on Planck's Law, Stefan-Boltzmann and the 1st and 2nd LTD. You see if someone makes a claim, or proposes a law of science, and it is disproven, this is how we make scientific progress in clearing away our errors. So let's take a look at Planck's Law as you have envoked it. Layed out here: Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law by IBD/ITN: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53548 link IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: When people say that the radiance out to space decreases and the radiance back to Earth increases they are not suggesting that greenhouse gases are increasing in temperature and yet decreasing in radiance. What they are saying is that "greenhouse gases" increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space. This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law. IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote:I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law. Irrespective of this not actually happening, you nonetheless claim that: 1. Earth's atmospheric temperature increases 2. Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases That is a direct violation of Planck's Law. You cannot resolve this through any convolution of radiation of any individual photons. Now you are clearly claiming that the radiance of a planet out into space must match it's ground level temperature. This is obviously not true. "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 This scenario ignores 2 basic things. A planer's electromagnetic field and it's gravity among other things.
05-07-2020 11:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:Venus' proximity to the sun, along with the Ideal Gas law, explains everything you want to know,... Like I said we aren't even talking about why yet, just establishing what we are even looking at. The dark of night on Venus at ground level has a far higher temperature than what matches the maximum solar radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun is explained, in your view, by the ideal gas law. OK cool. So since you accept that the above is true then we can review your objections based on Planck's Law, Stefan-Boltzmann and the 1st and 2nd LTD. You see if someone makes a claim, or proposes a law of science, and it is disproven, this is how we make scientific progress in clearing away our errors. So let's take a look at Planck's Law as you have envoked it. Layed out here: Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law by IBD/ITN: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53548 link IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: When people say that the radiance out to space decreases and the radiance back to Earth increases they are not suggesting that greenhouse gases are increasing in temperature and yet decreasing in radiance. What they are saying is that "greenhouse gases" increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space. This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law. IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote:I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law. Irrespective of this not actually happening, you nonetheless claim that: 1. Earth's atmospheric temperature increases 2. Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases That is a direct violation of Planck's Law. You cannot resolve this through any convolution of radiation of any individual photons. Now you are clearly claiming that the radiance of a planet out into space must match it's ground level temperature. This is obviously not true. "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
05-07-2020 18:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Now you are clearly claiming that the radiance of a planet out into space must match it's ground level temperature. This is obviously not true. This is where we can get funky without the monkey. The Moon's ground level temperature can exceed 200º F. while it has no atmosphere. This means that it has radiance but no heat except for the flow of it's radiance and incoming solar IR. It's gravity is about 1/10th that of the Earth. The Earth's atmosphere is influenced by it's gravity which is ~9.81 m/s/s. The ~ is an "about" sign and is not to be confused with a - sign. What I don't understand is how Venus' density of 5.24g/cm^3 while the Earth's is 5.51g/cm^3. This would be like saying denser gases are further from the Earth's surface than lighter gases. I think I can have some fun playing around with this because it gets into atmospheric chemistry and physics. I think as far as the Earth and Venus goes, we still have a lot to learn.
05-07-2020 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10i...20n...20a1...20a2...20b...39d...15a...15b...29...20a2...20b5...20b5...29...20v...20a1...39n... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Spam. Invalid proofs. 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
05-07-2020 23:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tgoebbles wrote: The dark of night on Venus at ground level has a far higher temperature than what matches the maximum solar radiance which could be absorbed by the Sun is explained, in your view, by the ideal gas law. OK cool. That's not my claim. My claim is that you are babbling and gibbering when you claim to be omniscient with temperatures and when you claim that there is only one "nighttime" surface temperature for Venus. tgoebbles wrote: So let's take a look at Planck's Law as you have envoked it. Layed out here: Stick with Stefan-Boltzmann. Yes, I have discussed Planck's in the past and in the context of the conversation you are citing I was discussing Planck's blackbody model. A violation of Stephan-Boltzmann is a violation of Planck's because Stefan-Boltzmann is strictly derived from Planck's. tgoebbles wrote: Now you are clearly claiming that the radiance of a planet out into space must match it's ground level temperature. I don't know what you are reading but I am not claiming that, nor have I ever claimed that. I claim Planck's law, Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein's and Kirchhoff's thermal law (as well as Kirchhoff's other laws but they are only indirectly relevant) along with the laws of thermodynamics. You are trying to falsify these laws by citing counterexamples that can only be accepted if one believes you are omniscient. I'm glad we cleared that up. . 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
06-07-2020 00:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...there is only one "nighttime" surface temperature for Venus. Ah so you're back to denying that Venus at ground level is higher than the equilibrium temp for the max solar radiance received huh? When our multiple measurements have the gap at over 250 degrees. Can't stop you from quitting, again. You said: IBdaMann wrote:Venus' proximity to the sun, along with the Ideal Gas law, explains everything you want to know... So you don't have an explanation after all because there is nothing to explain because we know nothing? I got that right? IBdaMann wrote:...A violation of Stephan-Boltzmann is a violation of Planck's... Yes the grounds for your objection are the same that makes sense. So what is your explanation here? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Now you are clearly claiming that the radiance of a planet out into space must match it's ground level temperature. ...I am not claiming that, ... Well then what are you saying here?: IBdaMann wrote:...increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space. This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law. I read that as: if the temperature goes for the atmosphere then the radiance into space must go up. If you didn't mean that then what did you mean?
06-07-2020 01:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tgoebbles wrote: Ah so you're back to denying that Venus at ground level is higher than the equilibrium temp for the max solar radiance received huh? I didn't say that either. I assert the Mean Value Theorem, and you knew that. You, on the other hand, are committing a Cat-1 violation of Local Ordinance § TMID tgoebbles wrote: When our multiple measurements have the gap at over 250 degrees. This is a standard tmiddles Cat-3 violation of Local Ordinance § TMID tgoebbles wrote: So you don't have an explanation after all because there is nothing to explain because we know nothing? I have only claimed that you know nothing, not "we." tgoebbles wrote: IBDaMann wrote:...A violation of Stephan-Boltzmann is a violation of Planck's... Yes the grounds for your objection are the same that makes sense. So what is your explanation here? You are not omniscient. Any other questions? tgoebbles wrote: Well then what are you saying here?: Anyone can tell when I'm not saying what you are saying that I'm saying because what you are saying makes no sense, and I always make sense when I write. tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space. This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law. I read that as: if the temperature goes for the atmosphere then the radiance into space must go up. If you didn't mean that then what did you mean? Once again you tried to subdivide the atomic unit. Change your wording to the following: "if the temperature goes [up] for the earth then the earth's radiance into space must go up." Now you have a correct statement! You always have to treat the entire body, not mere parts of it, especially undefined parts! This is a standard Cat-4 violation of Local Ordinance § TMID. . 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
06-07-2020 01:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: "if the temperature goes [up] for the earth then the earth's radiance into space must go up." And that would also be true for Venus correct?

Page 24 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..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
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