Remember me
▼ Content

What is heat?



Page 1 of 5123>>>
What is heat?29-09-2016 19:34
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
Heat is vibration of molecules. It's quantum stuff. All air molecules vibrate. Whether it's O2 or N2 or CH4 or CO2. You name it. All air molecules have heat and conduct heat. There's nothing special about certain gasses and not others.
Edited on 29-09-2016 19:37
29-09-2016 19:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes... Everything has thermal energy, barring photons and subatomic particles.

But different substances act differently. Some substances have higher specific heats. Some substances conduct heat better. And some substances, in their gaseous form, have different absorption and emission spectra.
29-09-2016 20:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yes... Everything has thermal energy, barring photons and subatomic particles.

What about a great idea? What about love? What about time?

Nevermind ... just nevermind.

jwoodward48 wrote: But different substances act differently.

Don't take this as a criticism. I am not saying that the above says absolutely nothing. I am not saying that. Do you really mean to say that different substances have different properties?

Anyway, all matter has thermal energy. All matter radiates per its temperature which is determined by its thermal energy. This may or may not be God's will, I'm not sure.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
29-09-2016 20:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Have pity on a socially illiterate person and reveal your tone here, please!
29-09-2016 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Yes... Everything has thermal energy, barring photons and subatomic particles.

What about a great idea? What about love? What about time?

.


Haven't you ever heard of a 'hot idea', a 'hot babe', or a 'hot time'?

I don't consider a 'cold bitch' to be about love.
I don't consider an 'idea placed on ice' to be a great idea.
I don't consider a clock stopped cold to be about time, but taking time for a 'cold one' certainly would be.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 21:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Have pity on a socially illiterate person and reveal your tone here, please!

Ignore everything before the word "Anyway."

Then ignore everything after the word "Anyway."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
29-09-2016 22:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Gases do not radiate as per Planck's Law. The radiation from a gas is dependent on both temperature and identity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JLRLzgZG3eAC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=do+gases+follow+planck's+law&source=bl&ots=tgRkHHHtWz&sig=Saj0A3tvDH7SALcDT2q0iunlopE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio8_LSorXPAhUFHh4KHVrPAMkQ6AEIJDAD#v=onepage&q=do%20gases%20follow%20planck's%20law&f=false
29-09-2016 23:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: Gases do not radiate as per Planck's Law. The radiation from a gas is dependent on both temperature and identity.


Would you take it personally if I were to say that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read? I'm at a loss at the moment for an appropriate sugar-coating.

The radiation of any gas is per it's temperature and domain of wavelengths, exactly per Planck's law.

Identity? Really? Who are you letting do your thinking for you? If you're going to do that you should at least let a SMART person do your thinking for you, not a clueless moron.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 00:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Identity, as in chemical identity, thank you very much. An accepted word.

Planck's Law describes a distribution, which the emission spectra of gases do not demonstrate. It thus does not apply to them. Planck's Law does not work when dealing with gases, just like how the IGL works okay for some things, but not necessarily for all.



There. An example of a gas (mercury and halides, gaseous) that does not demonstrate Planck's Law. If that example doesn't work, I'll find another and another and another. Planck's Law is more like the IGL than the Laws of Thermodynamics.
30-09-2016 02:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: Planck's Law describes a distribution, which the emission spectra of gases do not demonstrate.

False.

Planck's is expressed in math. All the rules of math still apply.

Go back through your notes and look up the terms "domain" and "range."

We are otherwise done on this topic. You are arguing that you somehow get to make up your own rules.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 03:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look at the graph, IB.
30-09-2016 09:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Identity, as in chemical identity, thank you very much. An accepted word.

Planck's Law describes a distribution, which the emission spectra of gases do not demonstrate. It thus does not apply to them. Planck's Law does not work when dealing with gases, just like how the IGL works okay for some things, but not necessarily for all.



There. An example of a gas (mercury and halides, gaseous) that does not demonstrate Planck's Law. If that example doesn't work, I'll find another and another and another. Planck's Law is more like the IGL than the Laws of Thermodynamics.


Looks like it follows Planck's law to me. I see no conflict in the graph here.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 11:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1206)
According to my sources; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.


According toIBdaMann ;
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
30-09-2016 11:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Identity, as in chemical identity, thank you very much. An accepted word.

Planck's Law describes a distribution, which the emission spectra of gases do not demonstrate. It thus does not apply to them. Planck's Law does not work when dealing with gases, just like how the IGL works okay for some things, but not necessarily for all.



There. An example of a gas (mercury and halides, gaseous) that does not demonstrate Planck's Law. If that example doesn't work, I'll find another and another and another. Planck's Law is more like the IGL than the Laws of Thermodynamics.


Looks like it follows Planck's law to me. I see no conflict in the graph here.

There is no temperature for which Planck's law gives a graph of radiance against wavelength with more than one peak. Therefore any emission spectrum with more than a single peak does not follow Planck's law.
30-09-2016 14:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, you scientifically illiterate WACKY religious person. Look at the DOMAIN. You are such an idiot.
30-09-2016 14:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
30-09-2016 14:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
They're at the same temperature, so that can't be it. GASP! Could it be that different substances radiate differently, past, even, their emissivity? Could it be that substances have EMISSION SPECTRA that CANNOT be predicted by Planck's Law?

Nah, it couldn't. I eagerly await IB or Into's response. Maybe it won't include an "argument from insult"!
30-09-2016 15:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote:No, you scientifically illiterate WACKY religious person. Look at the DOMAIN. You are such an idiot.

Did you look up the term "domain" ? Do you believe you can apply the concept of "the domain of radiating wavelengths" for any given substance since gases clearly have differing radiating domains?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 15:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look at the Armokdamn graph, IB. It's continuous yet non-Planckian.
30-09-2016 17:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Heat is vibration of molecules. It's quantum stuff. All air molecules vibrate. Whether it's O2 or N2 or CH4 or CO2. You name it. All air molecules have heat and conduct heat. There's nothing special about certain gasses and not others.


Heat is indeed the speed at which molecules are bashing against each other but it's not at all quantum.
30-09-2016 17:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: Look at the Armokdamn graph, IB. It's continuous yet non-Planckian.

You are never going to do well wherever math functions are used until you learn what a function's "domain" is.

Let me know when something changes.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 18:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What the hell, IB. What in the four hells?

I know what the domain of a function is. Now what the hell does that have to do with the graph which you evidently have not looked at? It is CONTINUOUS, and its domain covers everything from 400 to 700 nm. And it DOES NOT demonstrate the Planckian distribution of energy over wavelengths!
Edited on 30-09-2016 18:07
30-09-2016 18:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: I know what the domain of a function is.

It seems pretty clear that you do not.

I'm not going to explain it all a third time so you can completely ignore/dismiss it all a third time.

Find a gas whose energy radiation at a given temperature and wavelength which is in its domain is measured to be something other than what Planck's specifies and you will have a gas that does not radiate per Planck's.

Get me one of those. You have convinced me to not waste my time with your basement-generated graphics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 18:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: I know what the domain of a function is.

It seems pretty clear that you do not.

I'm not going to explain it all a third time so you can completely ignore/dismiss it all a third time.

Find a gas whose energy radiation at a given temperature and wavelength which is in its domain is measured to be something other than what Planck's specifies and you will have a gas that does not radiate per Planck's.

Get me one of those. You have convinced me to not waste my time with your basement-generated graphics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 19:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1206)
spot the difference between the two graphs

One is a black-body one is not an expert on the laws of thermodynmics as you claim it should tell which is which.
30-09-2016 19:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN

YOU ARE AN IDIOT

DOMAIN
30-09-2016 20:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
spot wrote: spot the difference between the two graphs [img]

I'm not interested at the moment. I have already handed you all the ammunition you need to kill this topic dead:

IBdaMann wrote: Find a gas whose energy radiation at a given temperature and wavelength which is in its domain is measured to be something other than what Planck's specifies and you will have a gas that does not radiate per Planck's.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 20:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
spot wrote: spot the difference between the two graphs [img]

I'm not interested at the moment. I have already handed you all the ammunition you need to kill this topic dead:

IBdaMann wrote: Find a gas whose energy radiation at a given temperature and wavelength which is in its domain is measured to be something other than what Planck's specifies and you will have a gas that does not radiate per Planck's.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 20:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
We have a graph of a mixture of gaseous metals. If that is not good enough, we can find another - but according to you, the identity of a radiating substance only matters to the point of changing emissivity, and that only scales the energy of the radiation; it does not move the peak. Thus, if I can demonstrate that Planck's Law predicts that all bodies of even temperature will have an emission spectrum only one local maximum (or peak, for those who haven't done Calc), and that a body of even temperature demonstrates an emission spectrum with multiple local maxima, then I have proved you wrong. That is, I will show that Planck's Law predicts that there is only one local maximum, making it the global maximum. This can be reworded to say that "any local maximum in a Planckian emission spectrum will be the global maximum." If I can demonstrate that there exist multiple local maxima in an emission spectrum, or that there exist points with y-value greater than or equal to a local maximum, then in combination with the proof of my statement about Planck's Law, I will have proven you wrong.

Do you agree with this?
Edited on 30-09-2016 20:13
30-09-2016 20:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Dusting off my old Calc I & II knowledge...

For reference, the Planck formula is this:


Edited on 30-09-2016 20:15
30-09-2016 20:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1206)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: spot the difference between the two graphs [img]

I'm not interested at the moment. I have already handed you all the ammunition you need to kill this topic dead:

IBdaMann wrote: Find a gas whose energy radiation at a given temperature and wavelength which is in its domain is measured to be something other than what Planck's specifies and you will have a gas that does not radiate per Planck's.


not interested, or don't know, or you do know but it proves what you said in earlier was wrong so you are refusing to answer. which is it?
30-09-2016 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
spot wrote:
According to my sources; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.


According toIBdaMann ;
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Go study this law from someplace besides the wasteland that is Wikipedia.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, that equation is very hard to find the derivative of. I mean REALLY hard. I got something out of it, but it was convoluted and I couldn't figure out when it became 0.

So can we just agree that Planckian distributions never have more than one local maxima?

(Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition. Nothing wrong that with.)
Edited on 30-09-2016 20:54
30-09-2016 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
spot wrote:
spot the difference between the two graphs

One is a black-body one is not an expert on the laws of thermodynmics as you claim it should tell which is which.


One is in prettier colors than the other.

That's about it.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1206)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
spot the difference between the two graphs

One is a black-body one is not an expert on the laws of thermodynmics as you claim it should tell which is which.


One is in prettier colors than the other.

That's about it.



thats one with pretty colours, now can you see it?
30-09-2016 20:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote:
DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN

YOU ARE AN IDIOT

DOMAIN


As I have already told spot, you have all the ammunition you need to kill this topic dead, but it will require you to look up the term "domain" as it applies in mathematics.

IBdaMann wrote: Find a gas whose energy radiation at a given temperature and wavelength which is in its domain is measured to be something other than what Planck's specifies and you will have a gas that does not radiate per Planck's.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-09-2016 20:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1206)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
According to my sources; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.


According toIBdaMann ;
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Go study this law from someplace besides the wasteland that is Wikipedia.


I thought you hate logical fallacy, saying something is wrong because its from Wikipedia and only because its from Wikipedia is a logical fallacy, I'm not claiming its infallible just in this case it's correct. Can you offer a source that contradicts it?

Thought not.

Dumass.
30-09-2016 20:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, it's not a logical fallacy to request a more trustworthy source.
30-09-2016 21:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Planck's Law will never predict multiple local maxima. Correct?

Let us look at the following graph:



Let's assume that this graph follows Planck's Law. There is a local maximum at ~600 nm, with a value of 80 (somethings). Planck's Law will never predict a value of 80 or above for any other wavelength. This includes 550 nm. I don't need to calculate it - because there exists a local maximum somewhere else, Planck's Law will preserve that as the global maximum. So surely 550 nm has a power of <80, right?

No. It has a power of 100.

Take that. You called me logically and scientifically illiterate - and yet you couldn't even notice the difference between two graphs. Hm. Maybe you are at the left side of the D-K graph.
30-09-2016 21:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1206)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, it's not a logical fallacy to request a more trustworthy source.


Is there a source that will tell you different?

I thought you were on my side anyway.

Traitor

Come the revolution you will be first to be shot.
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate What is heat?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N221207-12-2019 12:09
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact