What to think about this problem?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > What to think about this problem? > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

27-08-2019 00:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: I have already answered this and you know where to look. . Ah can't play hide the ball on this one. You and ITN have been claiming warmer bodies cannot absorb the radiance from cooler ones for years on here. So out with it. How does a human radiating over 700 watts not die?
27-08-2019 01:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I have already answered this and you know where to look. . Ah can't play hide the ball on this one. What ball? You aren't even in the ballpark. tmiddles wrote: You and ITN have been claiming warmer bodies cannot absorb the radiance from cooler ones for years on here. That is correct. Heat flows from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. tmiddles wrote: So out with it. Heat flows from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. tmiddles wrote: How does a human radiating over 700 watts not die? If he is radiating only 700W, he is already dead. His body temperature is too low, using your values for emissivity (0.97), our ex-human subject has a body temperature of only -123 deg F. So I guess the room is warming the body, not the body warming the room. 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 Edited on 27-08-2019 01:17
27-08-2019 01:25
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:How could there be energy received from conduction? It would seem you're trying to make heat flow backwards. The only conduction would be from body to air, and air to walls. Yes, the only energy source is food, provided there is no light in the room. It looks like you just took over for me. Thanks. I appreciate the break. . Ha ha, you have yet to try IBdaMann. How does a person in a room radiating as per Stefan-Boltzmann not freeze to death? Come on. Easy for real scientists like you and ITN. I don't believe Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to everything, all the time as claimed. But, I never got much further than the 'ideal' Black Body part. Ideal, isn't real, which makes this metaphysical. Would skin color effect the amount of time it takes for one of the people to freeze? We have a wide range of temperature tolerance, do to our physiology. We conserve our resources, like heat and water. Our internal temperature is around 98.6, but the surface temperature is usually less. The thing with live bodies, is it's not constant or predictable, it adjusts as needed. 70F isn't cool enough to having any meaningful effect. Sort of like 0.04% CO2 doesn't have any meaningful effect. The amount of energy is too small, and spread to thin to a overcome the cooling stuff going on. Climate Change only focuses on warming, but there are many other things going on, much bigger, powerful things. In the lab, a jar of CO2 can be warmed by light, neat trick. But out in the atmosphere, all the other molecules are doing their own neat tricks too, most aren't warming, like your 'greenhouse' gasses. Stefan-Boltzmann, I don't believe actually works for all things, but I never read the whole thing either. It's a law of the metaphysical world, which is a little different from the physical world. I tend to believe where physics and metaphysics collide, it only leads to arguments and debate, that never really get resolved.
27-08-2019 01:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:How could there be energy received from conduction? It would seem you're trying to make heat flow backwards. The only conduction would be from body to air, and air to walls. Yes, the only energy source is food, provided there is no light in the room. It looks like you just took over for me. Thanks. I appreciate the break. . Ha ha, you have yet to try IBdaMann. How does a person in a room radiating as per Stefan-Boltzmann not freeze to death? Come on. Easy for real scientists like you and ITN. I don't believe Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to everything, all the time as claimed. It applies to all bodies...all the time...everywhere. HarveyH55 wrote: But, I never got much further than the 'ideal' Black Body part. That is reference point, not an actual body. HarveyH55 wrote: Ideal, isn't real, which makes this metaphysical. No, the law applies to physical, real, bodies. HarveyH55 wrote: Would skin color effect the amount of time it takes for one of the people to freeze? No, because most of our heat loss is by conduction. HarveyH55 wrote: We have a wide range of temperature tolerance, do to our physiology. We conserve our resources, like heat and water. Our internal temperature is around 98.6, but the surface temperature is usually less. The thing with live bodies, is it's not constant or predictable, it adjusts as needed. 70F isn't cool enough to having any meaningful effect. Because 70 deg F is well within our ability to generate thermal energy and lose it to surrounding air. HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of like 0.04% CO2 doesn't have any meaningful effect. It does. It is an absolutely necessary gas for plant to grow. HarveyH55 wrote: The amount of energy is too small, CO2 is not energy. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. HarveyH55 wrote: and spread to thin to a overcome the cooling stuff going on. What 'cooling stuff'? HarveyH55 wrote: Climate Change only focuses on warming, I assume so. That seems to be the way the Church of Global Warming uses it, but 'climate change' is so far undefined. HarveyH55 wrote: but there are many other things going on, much bigger, powerful things. Such as? HarveyH55 wrote: In the lab, a jar of CO2 can be warmed by light, neat trick. Absorption of surface emitted infrared light does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, cooling the surface. HarveyH55 wrote: But out in the atmosphere, all the other molecules are doing their own neat tricks too, most aren't warming, like your 'greenhouse' gasses. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There are no 'greenhouse gases'. HarveyH55 wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann, I don't believe actually works for all things, but I never read the whole thing either. Here it is: radiance (in watts/square meter) = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature (in Kelvin) ^ 4 There. Now you've read it. That's the whole thing. HarveyH55 wrote: It's a law of the metaphysical world, Nope. It applies to the physical world. HarveyH55 wrote: which is a little different from the physical world. Nope. It applies to the physical world. HarveyH55 wrote: I tend to believe where physics and metaphysics collide, it only leads to arguments and debate, that never really get resolved. Nope. It applies to the physical world. An ideal black body is simply one with an emissivity of 100% (or 1). All real bodies have some value of emissivity less than one and greater than zero. 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
27-08-2019 01:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	tmiddles wrote: You and ITN have been claiming warmer bodies cannot absorb the radiance from cooler ones for years on here. Not our claim. It's science. Otherwise I'll be taking credit for Planck's law, the Pythagorean theorem, and a lot of other intellectual capital that I don't own. You are the one making a claim that violates physics. I am simply pointing out that your claim violates physics. You bear the full burden of showing the physics to be false, in this case the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which shows just how stupid your assertion is. Since we're talking about science, I can't prove it to be true. Nothing in science is ever proven true. You are asserting that it is false so show it to be false or stop insisting that it is false. tmiddles wrote:How does a human radiating over 700 watts not die? What was my answer to that the first time? . 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

27-08-2019 03:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to everything, all the time as claimed. ... nor are you required to believe it. In fact, there is extreme fame and fortune in it for you if you can find one repeatable instance in nature in which the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not hold. Perhaps you might realize that engineers rely on it when building systems in which heat is generated (and thus radiated). If I may ask, do you have a reason for not believing Stefan-Boltzmann is correct? Are you aware of a repeatable instance in nature in which the relation does not hold? If so, I would love to co-author a paper and share the Nobel with you. I'm sure you could find a way to use a million bucks, or you could give it to me, I don't care. HarveyH55 wrote: But, I never got much further than the 'ideal' Black Body part. Ideal, isn't real, which makes this metaphysical. Harvey, no, not at all. You accept the idea of temperature, yes? Just because there is a theoretical limit of "absolute zero" doesn't mean that your oven at 350degF preheat is somehow metaphysical. All it means is that there is a theoretical limit that can never be reached, but all the other values obviously can. All matter is less thermally efficient than the theoretical perfect material that doesn't exist. A regular black body is made of regular matter which has imperfections that vary depending on the substance and on the finish (since we're really talking only about surface area). An ideal black body, however, would be made of this perfect matter and we can actually compute what a theoretically perfect emission graph looks like which is why you always see this following type of graph (of Planck's Distribution) associated with black body radiation: I don't know whether you ever took calculus but Stefan-Boltzmann is nothing more than an integral, meaning it really is just a math thing which is why you can count on it working. If you simply integrate Planck's Distribution over all wavelengths, you get the famous Stefan-Boltzmann law: Notice that a body's radiance is a function only of its temperature and nothing more. tmiddles has been insisting that one must also include ambient radiation as a factor as well. Unfortunately, that's not what the science says, as you can see in the above and the below. As such, tmiddles is arguing against physics. HarveyH55 wrote: Would skin color effect the amount of time it takes for one of the people to freeze? tmiddles' scenario is absurd but the immediate answer to your question is yes, to the extent that skin color affects the emissivity (the "e" in the equation above) which affects the radiance. The "e" and the "σ" are just constants, "T" is the only variable. However, the answer to the tmiddles scenario is that humans don't freeze in 70 degree Fahrenheit rooms because humans are warm-blooded. One's metabolism would also affect one's body temperature which would affect one's radiance. We also need to distinguish between fat people and skinny people, between people who have just eaten a hefty meal of steak and potatoes vs. people who have been starving for a few days, etc... HarveyH55 wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann, I don't believe actually works for all things, but I never read the whole thing either. Hey, if you can find just one example where it doesn't hold then I am your best friend. I'll write the paper; you won't have to do a thing. Oh, and the pizza is on me. Nobel Prize baby, Nobel Prize! HarveyH55 wrote: It's a law of the metaphysical world, which is a little different from the physical world. I'll gladly take all of that metaphysical cash that you don't want. HarveyH55 wrote: I tend to believe where physics and metaphysics collide, it only leads to arguments and debate, that never really get resolved. I bet Into the Night can tell you just how metaphysical engineers think it is. . 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
27-08-2019 03:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: If he is radiating only 700W, he is already dead. His body temperature is too low, using your values for emissivity (0.97), our ex-human subject has a body temperature of only -123 deg F. What is your calculation? Hiding that ball too? HarveyH55 wrote:We have a wide range of temperature tolerance, do to our physiology. ....The thing with live bodies, is it's not constant or predictable, it adjusts as needed....CO2 It's absolutely a predictable range if the person doesn't die and this has nothing to do with CO2. Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:...the only energy source is food... ...you just took over for me.... How does a person in a room radiating as per Stefan-Boltzmann not freeze to death? I don't believe Stefan-Boltzmann law applies.... It applies to all bodies...all the time...everywhere. But your refuse to calculate it for a person in a room. This is because you cannot explain the energy loss in the absence of energy absorption. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: You and ITN have been claiming warmer bodies cannot absorb the radiance from cooler ones for years on here. Not our claim. It's science.... I can't prove it to be true. I have proven that your claim it's Science is bogus. You are debunked. You refuse to answer the question because it proves you wrong. Why doesn't a person in a room freeze to death with over 700 watts of emittence IBdamann? Why? IBdaMann wrote: Notice that a body's radiance is a function only of its temperature and nothing more. tmiddles has been insisting that one must also include ambient radiation as a factor as well. This is a fabrication. See my statement below: tmiddles wrote:Writing variation aside it is always that the radiance of an object is equal to: the Boltzmann constant, times the area of the object, times it's emissivity, times the temperature to the 4th. There's no way around this. You can't change the radiance without also changing at least one of the: area, emissivity, temperature Notice how much ITN and IBdaMann have written yet none of it answers the simple question how does a person in a room radiate over 700 watts and not freeze to death? You would have to have 14,000 calories to burn, eating six large pizzas to get that much energy. So how can it be that there is no energy absorbed? Edited on 27-08-2019 03:34
27-08-2019 04:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	tmiddles wrote:You would have to have 14,000 calories to burn, eating six large pizzas to get that much energy. So how can it be that there is no energy absorbed? You are also making the rookie mistake of not treating a dietary calorie as the 1,000 energy calories that it is. . 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
27-08-2019 04:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:You would have to have 14,000 calories to burn, eating six large pizzas to get that much energy. So how can it be that there is no energy absorbed? You are also making the rookie mistake of not treating a dietary calorie as the 1,000 energy calories that it is. . Nope I'm not. If a person has 2000 calories of food, which is 7/8ths of a pizza, per day that works out to about 100watts of thermal energy. 246060 = 86,400 seconds a day 1 Calorie = 1000 calories 1 calorie = 4.18 Watts so 2000 Calories = 8,360,000 watts a day so about 100 watts Now to maintain body temperature and lose 700 watts a person would need 7 times the calories, 14000, or about 6 large pizzas a day: Now I think I could do it! But keep in mind this would be just to not go hypothermic in a room that is 20C, 68 F. So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding, or how heat is reduced or however we want to tackle it. Clearly there is a missing piece of your puzzle here.
27-08-2019 06:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: If he is radiating only 700W, he is already dead. His body temperature is too low, using your values for emissivity (0.97), our ex-human subject has a body temperature of only -123 deg F. What is your calculation? Hiding that ball too? Nope. I used the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I did make one mistake though, I assumed he was radiating 700w per square meter, rather than total. Nevertheless he is still dead radiating only 700w per square meter. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:We have a wide range of temperature tolerance, do to our physiology. ....The thing with live bodies, is it's not constant or predictable, it adjusts as needed....CO2 It's absolutely a predictable range if the person doesn't die and this has nothing to do with CO2. YOU indicated that he was radiating a mere 700 watts. YOU gave a value for emissivity out of your head. He is dead. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:...the only energy source is food... ...you just took over for me.... How does a person in a room radiating as per Stefan-Boltzmann not freeze to death? I don't believe Stefan-Boltzmann law applies.... It applies to all bodies...all the time...everywhere. But your refuse to calculate it for a person in a room. I just did. tmiddles wrote: This is because you cannot explain the energy loss in the absence of energy absorption. Absorption makes no difference. He is dead. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: You and ITN have been claiming warmer bodies cannot absorb the radiance from cooler ones for years on here. Not our claim. It's science.... I can't prove it to be true. I have proven that your claim it's Science is bogus. You just denied science. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has not been falsified. tmiddles wrote: You are debunked. WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has not been falsified. tmiddles wrote: You refuse to answer the question because it proves you wrong. WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has not been falsified. tmiddles wrote: Why doesn't a person in a room freeze to death with over 700 watts of emittence IBdamann? Why? He's dead. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Notice that a body's radiance is a function only of its temperature and nothing more. tmiddles has been insisting that one must also include ambient radiation as a factor as well. This is a fabrication. See my statement below: Lie. tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote:Writing variation aside it is always that the radiance of an object is equal to: the Boltzmann constant, times the area of the object, times it's emissivity, times the temperature to the 4th. There's no way around this. You can't change the radiance without also changing at least one of the: area, emissivity, temperature Notice how much ITN and IBdaMann have written yet none of it answers the simple question how does a person in a room radiate over 700 watts and not freeze to death? He is dead. tmiddles wrote: You would have to have 14,000 calories to burn, eating six large pizzas to get that much energy. Actually, that's 16271W/hr for 14,000 food calories. Since an average pizza with original crust (14 " pizza assumed) is about 2389 food calories, our dead man would have to eat six pizzas. tmiddles wrote: So how can it be that there is no energy absorbed? The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not discuss absorption. 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
27-08-2019 06:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote:You would have to have 14,000 calories to burn, eating six large pizzas to get that much energy. So how can it be that there is no energy absorbed? You are also making the rookie mistake of not treating a dietary calorie as the 1,000 energy calories that it is. . Nope I'm not. If a person has 2000 calories of food, which is 7/8ths of a pizza, per day that works out to about 100watts of thermal energy. Math error. Watts is not watts per day or even watts per hour. Calories are not directly convertible to watts. You can convert them to joules though. 14000000 calories is 58576000 J tmiddles wrote: 246060 = 86,400 seconds a day 1 Calorie = 1000 calories 1 calorie = 4.18 Watts so 2000 Calories = 8,360,000 watts a day so about 100 watts Now to maintain body temperature and lose 700 watts a person would need 7 times the calories, 14000, or about 6 large pizzas a day: Now I think I could do it! But keep in mind this would be just to not go hypothermic in a room that is 20C, 68 F. So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding, or how heat is reduced or however we want to tackle it. Clearly there is a missing piece of your puzzle here. The missing piece is your math. one calorie does not equal 4.18 W, but it does equal 4.184 J. 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
27-08-2019 07:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: YOU indicated that he was radiating a mere 700 watts. YOU gave a value for emissivity out of your head. He is dead. Do the calculation correctly then. Break down the simple situation of a person, alive and kicking with a surface temp of 33C, in a normal room with 4 walls that's a comfortable 22C. What is the emitted radiance? How do they maintain body temperature? Do it right Mr. Scientist. No one is going to stop you.
27-08-2019 07:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: YOU indicated that he was radiating a mere 700 watts. YOU gave a value for emissivity out of your head. He is dead. Do the calculation correctly then. I did. tmiddles wrote: Break down the simple situation of a person, alive and kicking with a surface temp of 33C, in a normal room with 4 walls that's a comfortable 22C. I already calculated that. tmiddles wrote: What is the emitted radiance? I already calculated that. tmiddles wrote: How do they maintain body temperature? I already told you. tmiddles wrote: Do it right Mr. Scientist. No one is going to stop you. I already did. 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
27-08-2019 08:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: I already did. OK good job so how do they maintain body temperature?
27-08-2019 18:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I already did. OK good job so how do they maintain body temperature? Already answered. 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

27-08-2019 19:06
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I already did. OK good job so how do they maintain body temperature? Your body conserves heat and energy efficiently, doesn't like to work any harder than it needs to. Your heart rate and blood pressure re-distributes heat where it's needed, or where it can leave quick and easy. The skin and a layer of fat help keep the outside temperature from effecting the internal temperature. The combination gives a fairly large comfort zone.
27-08-2019 19:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I already did. OK good job so how do they maintain body temperature? Your body conserves heat and energy efficiently, doesn't like to work any harder than it needs to. Your heart rate and blood pressure re-distributes heat where it's needed, or where it can leave quick and easy. The skin and a layer of fat help keep the outside temperature from effecting the internal temperature. The combination gives a fairly large comfort zone. Quite right. The body maintains its internal temperature through the hypothalamus, located near the base of the brain. This is also the organ that 'cranks it up a bit' to help make the body intolerable to infectious cells when they are detected....the fever. 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 Edited on 27-08-2019 19:30
27-08-2019 21:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	HarveyH55 wrote: The skin and a layer of fat help keep the outside temperature from effecting the internal temperature. It's the human parallel to the earth's crust. . 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
27-08-2019 23:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Your body conserves heat and energy efficiently, Are we able to trap our thermal energy? Are we able to reduce our radiance? Ignore this question if you choose to Harvey, I know it's an uncomfortable reckoning: If a human being isn't able to reduce their radiance that is energy out. How much? IBdaMann and ITN will never calculate this even though it's simply using the Stefan-Boltzmann formula (I come up with about 723 watts). If the only source of energy is from the food we eat (not my assertion but Gasguzzlers and presumably IBdaMann and ITN) then we have to make up both the loss from radiance and anything else with food alone. This simple question: How do YOU right now maintain your body temperature in the room you're in in right now? Exposes the lie that we cannot absorb radiance from cooler objects.
28-08-2019 00:59
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Your body conserves heat and energy efficiently, Are we able to trap our thermal energy? Are we able to reduce our radiance? Ignore this question if you choose to Harvey, I know it's an uncomfortable reckoning: If a human being isn't able to reduce their radiance that is energy out. How much? IBdaMann and ITN will never calculate this even though it's simply using the Stefan-Boltzmann formula (I come up with about 723 watts). If the only source of energy is from the food we eat (not my assertion but Gasguzzlers and presumably IBdaMann and ITN) then we have to make up both the loss from radiance and anything else with food alone. This simple question: How do YOU right now maintain your body temperature in the room you're in in right now? Exposes the lie that we cannot absorb radiance from cooler objects. How many days can the average warm-blooded animal survive without food? Guess it's sort of like that dude in the bible, who is everywhere, always, all the time... I don't believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, like many people believe in God's Law. It probably has it uses and purpose, but not likely applies to everything, all the time, always, as claimed. Perhaps, metaphysically, that's true, but you are applying it to the physical world. I have a negative opinion of philosophy, worst experience I had in college, lot of work, lengthy papers, and barely squeezed a 'C' out of the course. The excessive work load hurt my other classes too. The professor should have been aware we all weren't majoring in philosophy, and had other classes to work on. I didn't get a free-ride, or a lot of financial aid, I had to earn money as well. It was stressful, should have dropped it, but wasn't really a quitter on anything, and I still have to take something I wasn't really interested in, to fill a course requirement. Don't show up late, to register for classes... Seems pretty obvious, that Stefan-Boltzmann provides considerable wiggle room, not reveal here, otherwise the Global Warming Boat would have sunk a long time ago. I barely tolerate the metaphysics of Climate Change, but I have a financial interest in it. Climate Change is a metaphysical problem, since it can't observed, measured, or tested, it's an opinion, only exists in words, and people arguing whether or not it exists, and trying to get everyone to believe, one way or another.
28-08-2019 01:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law Then you really shouldn't call it a law and reduce it, in your estimation, to something less than that. Do you believe anything related to radiance? I gather you're taking an empirical, common sense approach, that doesn't include considering radiance.
28-08-2019 02:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Your body conserves heat and energy efficiently, Are we able to trap our thermal energy? No. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. tmiddles wrote: Are we able to reduce our radiance? Only by getting colder. tmiddles wrote: Ignore this question if you choose to Harvey, I know it's an uncomfortable reckoning: You have not reckoned anything. You have ignored the answers given to you and repetitively keep asking the same question over and over. tmiddles wrote: If a human being isn't able to reduce their radiance that is energy out. How much? IBdaMann and ITN will never calculate this even though it's simply using the Stefan-Boltzmann formula Lie. Already answered. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy. tmiddles wrote: (I come up with about 723 watts). Then the test subject is dead. His body temperature is -123 deg F. tmiddles wrote: If the only source of energy is from the food we eat (not my assertion but Gasguzzlers and presumably IBdaMann and ITN) then we have to make up both the loss from radiance and anything else with food alone. Wrong. Already answered. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy. tmiddles wrote: This simple question: How do YOU right now maintain your body temperature in the room you're in in right now? Repetition fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Exposes the lie that we cannot absorb radiance from cooler objects. Lie. * You cannot make heat flow backwards. 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
28-08-2019 02:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Your body conserves heat and energy efficiently, Are we able to trap our thermal energy? Are we able to reduce our radiance? Ignore this question if you choose to Harvey, I know it's an uncomfortable reckoning: If a human being isn't able to reduce their radiance that is energy out. How much? IBdaMann and ITN will never calculate this even though it's simply using the Stefan-Boltzmann formula (I come up with about 723 watts). If the only source of energy is from the food we eat (not my assertion but Gasguzzlers and presumably IBdaMann and ITN) then we have to make up both the loss from radiance and anything else with food alone. This simple question: How do YOU right now maintain your body temperature in the room you're in in right now? Exposes the lie that we cannot absorb radiance from cooler objects. How many days can the average warm-blooded animal survive without food? Guess it's sort of like that dude in the bible, who is everywhere, always, all the time... I don't believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, like many people believe in God's Law. It probably has it uses and purpose, but not likely applies to everything, all the time, always, as claimed. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all bodies. HarveyH55 wrote: Perhaps, metaphysically, that's true, but you are applying it to the physical world. It does apply to the physical world. HarveyH55 wrote: I have a negative opinion of philosophy, worst experience I had in college, lot of work, lengthy papers, and barely squeezed a 'C' out of the course. Unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that most schools don't teach philosophy at all well (and in many cases, at all.) Philosophy is actually pretty simple. Schools make it complicated to make a buck off of you. The only real rule is that a philosophical argument must use your own reasoning. You cannot use the reasoning of someone else. There. Now you know more about philosophy than the moron that was taking your money at that school. HarveyH55 wrote: The excessive work load hurt my other classes too. The professor should have been aware we all weren't majoring in philosophy, and had other classes to work on. I didn't get a free-ride, or a lot of financial aid, I had to earn money as well. It was stressful, should have dropped it, but wasn't really a quitter on anything, and I still have to take something I wasn't really interested in, to fill a course requirement. Don't show up late, to register for classes... Don't have to major in philosophy to understand it. HarveyH55 wrote: Seems pretty obvious, that Stefan-Boltzmann provides considerable wiggle room, None. HarveyH55 wrote: not reveal here, otherwise the Global Warming Boat would have sunk a long time ago. It did. HarveyH55 wrote: I barely tolerate the metaphysics of Climate Change, No physics at all, not even metaphysics. The phrase 'climate change' remains undefined. HarveyH55 wrote: but I have a financial interest in it. Climate Change is a metaphysical problem, since it can't observed, measured, or tested, it's an opinion, only exists in words, and people arguing whether or not it exists, and trying to get everyone to believe, one way or another. Hard to get someone to believe in something that's undefined. Strange, but true. It is possible, though, as evidenced by the Church of Global Warming. 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
28-08-2019 03:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:I don't believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, like many people believe in God's Law. ... It applies everywhere...all the time...in all bodies. But ITN can't explain how it works with a person in a room like you an me. Come on ITN, why don't you share your answer to the RIDDLE ! How much energy is emitted by radiance for a person in a room and how do they then maintain body temperature? You're a scientist right? Should be easy for you.
28-08-2019 07:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (22434)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:I don't believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, like many people believe in God's Law. ... It applies everywhere...all the time...in all bodies. But ITN can't explain how it works with a person in a room like you an me. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Come on ITN, why don't you share your answer to the RIDDLE ! Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: How much energy is emitted by radiance for a person in a room and how do they then maintain body temperature? Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You're a scientist right? Should be easy for you. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone 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
30-08-2019 19:43
Mohammad Jahran Chowdhury ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Climate change is real. We should act seriously . i made some shirts about climate change [img][/img][http://bit.ly/2ZEybEi http://bit.ly/2ZEybEi I hope you guys would like that. temperature is rising and some people act like nothing is gonna happen to make me sick. Edited on 30-08-2019 19:45
30-08-2019 23:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	Mohammad Jahran Chowdhury wrote: Climate change is real. We should act seriously . i made some shirts about climate change [img][/img][http://bit.ly/2ZEybEi http://bit.ly/2ZEybEi I hope you guys would like that. temperature is rising and some people act like nothing is gonna happen to make me sick. I assure you, nothing is going to happen to make you sick. . 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

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate What to think about this problem?: