Remember me
▼ Content

What to think about this problem?



Page 1 of 212>
What to think about this problem?14-09-2012 10:24
jjcast
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
I am concerned so I tried to listen to both sides. These are the temporary conclusions I have arrived at:

The climate is changing, no doubt, but hasn't it been changing for millions of years?

I have taken seriously the opinion that climate change scientists have an ax to grind, much research funding money would dry up if there was no reason for major concern. I've heard of smear campaigns and persecution against some skeptics.

I have also heard that some skeptics favour the views of major corporations and are defending the status quo not entirely objectively.

In my case, I have no ax to grind, research or otherwise, so I have decided that there is evidence for perhaps man-produced CO2 increase in the atmosphere, etc., BUT what believers fail to point out is that the trends they show are short lived (50 years or so), we would need what it doesn't exist, that is, trends covering many hundreds of years.

Let's remember that there seems to have been a warm period in England in the Middle Ages when people seemed to have been making local wine from local grapes and a mini-ice age in the 18th Century or so when people went ice skating on the Thames.

So, if the present scientific results advanced by believers are right, and they are the result of natural phenomena, then we should take action to get over the inevitable bad results, but without changing our current way of life; but if believers come up with overwhelming data to show that the changes in the environment are due to industrial activity and are leading to catastrophic events, then we should listen to them and act accordingly, but I have not seen any evidence at all of such firm and alarming evidence, all they say and I have read or heard is open to debate.

Then, I would recommend to sit and wait before taking any action and we should not allow ourselves to be pressured by horror stories from the media and extreme believers. As time goes by, the graphs and curves that studies will produce will show us which way the earth is going and if we are responsible for that or not.

There are political agendas at play from both sides and caution seems to me the best policy.

JJ
Edited by branner on 18-09-2012 19:10
21-09-2012 21:15
Daniel
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Nice logic. Much has been said about the "lack of warming" during this past decade. Skeptics are using this to claim that the entire campaign has been fradulent. Believers have placed the blame on everything from Chineses aerosols to a prepnderence of La Ninas to a solar minimum. At this point, we may be best served to wait and see what may occur in the next few years. If the believers are correct, then the warming should resume with a vengence, and we shuold act appropriately. If not, then we have not wasted any energy or resources on a non-problem.
08-11-2012 23:19
Gray-Wolf
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
I somehow think I must be reading a whole different set of scientific studies/papers/Reviews/presentation than you Guys?

The past two years of data alone has shown us how important the 'albedo flip' across the Arctic is on both warming and the circulation in the northern hemisphere but also the data from the 'dimming' of solar energy (the flip side of AGW) by the particulate/sulphate pollution elements of fossil fuel burning!

We are deep within a PDO-ve Phase with a number of Nina's and yet we still post 'Top 10' global warmest years with Global dimming sapping the solar input by 10% and more???

If you recall most previous climate models ran simulations with particulate 'shielding' only accounting for 0.5 to 1% reduction of incoming solar.

With China (and parts of India) now reducing particulate pollution from their power stations (with our help and scrubber technologies) the next 6 years will see a steady reduction in the 'umbrella' that the sulphate/soot/nitrates produced. 1998 had a super Nino but a summer Arctic with much more reflective surface to reflect out the heat and the Asian brown cloud reducing rain drop sizes by over 50% (producing higher albedo clouds and so reducing incoming solar Radiation even more) so what will global temps do when we step up the power of the sun by 5 or 6% whilst dramatically 'darkening' the surface of the planet (a planet now with a lot more CO2 in the air than 98' to hold onto more of that heat).

As for Antarctica? well there is good news! The ozone hole is showing real signs of healing! We stand to find out if the science of enhanced circumpolar winds/current driven by the ozone hole holds true and that global temps have been being kept at bay , for the last 20 years, by this circulation 'tweak' by the hole?

Thing is Guys we are well into the impacts of AGW but they will become worse very quickly so you don't have long before you decide you should have taken the hint more quickly? There is no point arguing the toss anymore. The science has been there for years and now the physical proofs are beggining to turn up (many far ahead of time and worse than initially thought). Just either sit back and let it unfold or gen up real fast and decide if you have any help to offer? (someone will have a solution...we just gotta make sure that 'someone' has their mind on the problem and that won't happen if folk won't accept the problem????)

Like any Addict we will just keep making excuses or looking for ways to deflect responsibility until we accept we have a problem and see our 'addiction' for what it is. I'm sure we can enjoy as finer life without Fossil fuels as we do with them, we just need to replace them as our drug of choice in favour of one less damaging (but just as efficient?).
Edited on 08-11-2012 23:20
09-11-2012 00:01
jjcast
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
I'm afraid you misrepresent the issues.

Global climate change and global warming (and cooling) has been going on since the time the earth was born.

Limited trends do not prove anything unless they are REALLY long term and irreversible and mainly due to human agency, THAT has not been proven.

The example of the drug addict is so bad that implies that climate change is bad like drugs are in the long term for us, that people like us remain skeptic because of lethargy or addiction to the good life, nothing farther from the truth.

Some like apocalyptic scenarios because it pays for their research, no matter how useless it can be, or just because they make darkly exciting prospects, I'm a logical person unmoved by exaggerated or faulty arguments, so I wait and see, like all reasonable people should do.


"What you know will never hurt you, what will hurt you is what you don't know"
09-12-2012 13:38
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The predictions of the IPCC don't seem very bad to me.

A less than knee high sea level rise(by 2100) just doesn't scare me.

Abandonment of our industrial society does.
15-12-2012 02:00
Seeking Bliss
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Dear All,

According to research done by the Spiritual Science Research Foundation, they published an Abstract on causes of global warming and global warming facts.

There is a spiritual root cause of global warming according to research.

For the Article published

http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/causes-of-global-warming-facts
16-12-2012 00:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
According to spiritual research, the primary cause of global warming is a cyclic process that occurs in the Universe over time. The effects of global warming we have so far witnessed are just the beginning of a destructive phase which will increase in intensity over the next 5-10 years. The destructive phase of a cycle can be worsened by humankind's poor behaviour towards nature. The poor behaviour which we see nowadays is an outcome of the reduced spiritual consciousness of humans and resultant inability to gain protection against the influence of negative energies. Spiritual practice is the only way to truly transform our spiritually polluted mind into a pure one.


Sounds like most of the warmist/alarmist drivel. "Spiritual research" so not the real world but the spirit world... OK, so there's a problem in the non-real world but we are OK in this real one.
29-04-2013 23:45
Gray-Wolf
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
just Google '400ppm' and see what global temps and sea levels we should inherit once the system reacts fully to the forcings.
14-05-2018 19:30
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Google 15,000 ppmv for water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas.
Its infrared spectrum is broader than that of carbon dioxide.

Humans produce a paltry 3.76% of the 1.36 ppmv annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, so we're quite inconsequential.

Moreover, in the context of China and India burning increasing quantities of coal to raise the meager standard of living of their billions, anything we do in the U.S. is immaterial EVEN IF you believe the ecohypocrites, which I do not.
14-05-2018 22:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Gray-Wolf wrote:
just Google '400ppm' and see what global temps and sea levels we should inherit once the system reacts fully to the forcings.


There are no 'forcings'. Earth's temperature is simply a function of what the Sun puts out and what is absorbed by the Earth.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Carbon dioxide is incapable of warming the Earth.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 23:36
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Daniel wrote:
If not, then we have not wasted any energy or resources on a non-problem.


Gasp! An AlGorian admitting that they just MIGHT be wrong!!!!

Notify the press at once. Trillions of dollars spent "on a non-problem" already.
24-08-2019 18:49
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Seeking Bliss wrote:
Dear All,

According to research done by the Spiritual Science Research Foundation, they published an Abstract on causes of global warming and global warming facts.

There is a spiritual root cause of global warming according to research.

For the Article published

http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/causes-of-global-warming-facts


This is realy objective science. Climate science is settled.


Tell me what you want to demonstrate, give me money, and I will design a model to prove it.
Edited on 24-08-2019 19:24
24-08-2019 21:25
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Third world guy wrote:


There is a spiritual root cause of global warming according to research.


This is realy (sic) objective science. Climate science is settled.


If the facts do not match the theory, they (facts) (sic) must be eliminated.


Bad grammar, and terrible reasoning. You don't "eliminate" facts. You abandon a theory that fails, such as Neo-Darwinism, such as AlGorian Global Warming.

Spiritual root causes don't make the earth warmer. Sorry.
24-08-2019 22:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I've been trying to think of a simple way to explain climate change over large numbers of years vs vs climate change over a few hundred years because there is always confusion about the issue.

Here it is - there are long term changes over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. These changes are very slow and are caused by the natural earth and sun.

There are also short term climate changes occurring over a few hundreds of years or even decades. These short term and relatively rapid changes overwhelm the long term changes. They are much faster and add to what ever is going on with the natural earth and sun. The much faster short term climate changes are caused by the CO2 which industrial processes have caused.

If you understand this difference between long term and short term you won't be fooled by by claims of "there have always been climate changes".
Ignore that, we have to be concerned with the shorter term changes.

It's hard to make this explanation really brief but i'm hoping to shorten it somehow. Any suggestions?
Edited on 24-08-2019 23:00
24-08-2019 23:40
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
There hasn't been any problem so far, why would 'believe' there is going to be a problem in a few hundred years? Because Al Gore says so?
25-08-2019 01:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
jjcast wrote:I am concerned

Apparently you are not concerned enough to find out what you are talking about.

How was "the Climate" defined for you? Did you even bother to ask?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
25-08-2019 02:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
takeit wrote:
I've been trying to think of a simple way to explain climate change over large numbers of years vs vs climate change over a few hundred years because there is always confusion about the issue.
Are you talking about local climate? There's no such thing as global climate. Antarctica is quite different than Brazil.
takeit wrote:Here it is - there are long term changes over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. These changes are very slow and are caused by the natural earth and sun.
Changes in what? What kind of changes?
takeit wrote:There are also short term climate changes occurring over a few hundreds of years or even decades. These short term and relatively rapid changes overwhelm the long term changes. They are much faster and add to what ever is going on with the natural earth and sun. The much faster short term climate changes are caused by the CO2 which industrial processes have caused.
Are you claiming that CO2 is more powerful than the sun, even though it is not an energy source? Fascinating!
takeit wrote:If you understand this difference between long term and short term you won't be fooled by by claims of "there have always been climate changes".
Do YOU understand the difference? Don't be so afraid to be specific.
takeit wrote:Ignore that, we have to be concerned with the shorter term changes. Can you same one?...besides temperature...which we have no long term reliable record.
takeit wrote:It's hard to make this explanation really brief but i'm hoping to shorten it somehow. Any suggestions?
Yes. Use all the words you need to explain it. There is no word limit per post on this forum that I am aware of.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 25-08-2019 02:14
25-08-2019 02:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: I've been trying to think of a simple way to explain climate change over large numbers of years vs vs climate change over a few hundred years because there is always confusion about the issue.

But be fair, with whom does the confusion reside?

keepit wrote: Here it is - there are long term changes over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. These changes are very slow and are caused by the natural earth and sun.

Instead of achieving maximum confusion by hiding all details behind the word "changes," could you possibly be specific and spell out what those changes are.

Think of it this way: Everything changes.

How are we supposed to know if a change is a Climate Change change or is some other Non-Climate-Change change?

keepit wrote: There are also short term climate changes occurring over a few hundreds of years or even decades.


Think of it this way: Everything changes.

There are changes that occur within picoseconds. Of course much bigger changes occur that take up to several nanoseconds. This means that given time scales of even larger orders of magnitude, such as microseconds, or conceivably even milliseconds, much, much larger-scale changes can transpire. If we extrapolate out to the virtually inconceivable scale of full minutes, now the possibilities are so limitless that I must ask you to spell out which ones you mean specifically.

I recommend using "one minute" as your dividing line between "short-term" and "long-term," i.e. less than one minute is short term and of course one minute or longer is clearly long-term. If you understand this difference between long term and short term you won't be fooled by by claims of "there have always been climate change definitions".


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
25-08-2019 03:10
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IBDM,
I like your questions in that last post.
Unfortunately they're too hard for me.
But how about philosophizing about what you said about picoseconds, milliseconds, etc.
Suppose the conversation is about the unbelievably small quantum world.
I'm betting that the quantum world, (or the picosecond world) would be more interesting than the world we perceive. Too bad we can't perceive it though.
For example, i just typed a few letters and words but during that amount of time so many things happened in my body and my immediate environment compared to the few pecks at the keyboard that i perceived. If i could just perceive more about inner space and "micro time, life would be more interesting.

There was a movie a long time ago called "The Incredible Shrinking Man". The guy shrunk down to invisibility and the movie ended.
Edited on 25-08-2019 03:20
25-08-2019 03:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
RenaissanceMan wrote:Moreover, in the context of China and India burning increasing quantities of coal to raise the meager standard of living of their billions, anything we do in the U.S. is immaterial EVEN IF you believe the ecohypocrites, which I do not.

There is wisdom in what you write. I would like to expand on it if I may.

Marxists have always tried to classify CO2, a life-essential compound that is a natural component of our atmosphere, as "pollution" and "poison." They *HATE* the United States because our capitalist economy that is based mostly on sound economic principles, totally rocks and stands in embarrassing contrast to Marxism which has failed every time it has been implemented.

Therefore, they decry the Untied States as being a terrible polluting and poisoning monster ... due to its economy spanking everyone else's ass.

The problem is that if you recognize that CO2 isn't either pollution or poison then you realize that the US doesn't actually pollute very much at all. On the other hand, China, India, countries in Africa, much of southwest Asia, and many, many others are dumping crap onto our planet, into our oceans and into our atmosphere in apocalyptic fashion.

If the warmizombies were actually concerned about the planet and about pollution, they would be focused on those countries.

If, on the other hand, they are simply humanity-hating bastards trying to destroy the United States, to kill capitalism and to make all of humanity suffer eternal misery, then they would be pressuring Americans to enact policies to address Global Warming.

Oh look, they're pressuring Americans to enact policies to address Global Warming.

Oh look, they don't say word one about China, India, Africa, ... or any others.


Hmmm.....


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
25-08-2019 03:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: IBDM,
I like your questions in that last post.
Unfortunately they're too hard for me.

I enjoyed the feel of what you wrote, it's just that I'm too stupid to figure out the words.

Could you just philosphize about ... you know, the world?

keepit wrote: There was a movie a long time ago call "The Incredible Shrinking Man". The guy shrunk down to invisibility and the movie ended.

Oh yeah, I know that one. He was a demon named "Maxwell." He was an engineer on a train that ran out of coal, so he shrunk down really, really small and hung out at the door to the furnace. Any fast moving particles outside he grabbed them and threw them into the furnace. Any slow-moving particles in the furnace he grabbed and removed.

Anyway, the moral of that story is "Necessity is the Mother of Invention."
Maxwell needed to get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics so he devised tmiddles "net flow" equation, got the train going and saved the day.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
25-08-2019 03:43
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I didn't see the movie you're talking about.
The one i saw was about a guy on boat that went through a fog which caused him to start shrinking. It was real problem for him when he got down to the size of insects.
25-08-2019 03:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: I didn't see the movie you're talking about.
The one i saw was about a guy on boat that went through a fog which caused him to start shrinking. It was real problem for him when he got down to the size of insects.


... OK, my humor went over your head.

You had asked me to "philosophize" about the micro world.

Look up "Maxwell's Demon." I worked Maxwell's Demon into the context of the The Incredible Shrinking Man and used it to poke fun at tmiddles.


... it's doesn't come across as quite as clever if it has to be explained.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
25-08-2019 03:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Yeah, i know, Maxwell's demon. I like that story. Thanks for pointing it out.
It's clever!
I knew there was meaning in there the first time i read it. I just didn't go to the trouble to "scrutinize".
Edited on 25-08-2019 04:01
25-08-2019 11:52
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles "net flow" equation,

I'm so honored to get credit!

Anyone want to take the challenge of calculating the heat loss of a person in a room?: See EXAMPLE 1.13 Calculate heat transfer by radiation of a person standing in a 22.0°C room

Easy right? I mean we are all people in rooms that are about 70F so super relatable.
Edited on 25-08-2019 11:54
25-08-2019 18:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles "net flow" equation,

I'm so honored to get credit!

Anyone want to take the challenge of calculating the heat loss of a person in a room?: See EXAMPLE 1.13 Calculate heat transfer by radiation of a person standing in a 22.0°C room

Easy right? I mean we are all people in rooms that are about 70F so super relatable.


70F? Maybe occasionally in the winter months... My thermostat is set at 80F in the summer, 60F in the winter, if not simple turned off...

Now, not all people are the same. Underneath the skin layers, there is a layer of fat, which has some strong insulating properties, more so than the skin. Also, some people sweat more than others. It's not always the dripping down your face, soaked T-shirt type of sweating, most of it evaporates quickly, hardly even noticed. The high humidity around here, makes the heavy sweaters noticeable more often though. People sweat to aid in cooling the body. Not everyone is precisely 98.6F either, that's sort of an average. Everyone has their own ideal body temperature, and their bodies will do it's best to maintain it. When it's cold outside the body, pores close up, skin tightens (goose pimples), heart rate slows, blood pressure drops, all to conserve heat. When it's too hot, the pores open wide, we sweat more, heart rate increases, blood pressure increases, anything to shed the excess heat. Environmental temperature is the only thing that triggers the regulating factors, our health, and physical activity figure into it as well.

I don't think your math question really applies, since we generate our own heat, the term 'warm-blooded'
25-08-2019 19:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote:I don't think your math question really applies, since we generate our own heat, the term 'warm-blooded'

That's not really so much a problem and it is actually useful to show tmiddles' equation to be false.

Let's say you enter a 70degF room with your warm-blooded body maintaining your body temperature of 98.6degF ... if you absorb any radiance from anything, including the cooler walls or the cooler air, your body temperature must increase.

In such a situation, the body temperature does not increase. ERGO via Logic 101, there is no radiance from anything being absorbed by the body, which includes the cooler walls and the cooler air.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
26-08-2019 00:25
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:Not everyone is precisely 98.6F either, ...
I don't think your math question really applies, since we generate our own heat, the term 'warm-blooded'

Yes well said. There is a finite range of human variation but there is no reason we cannot do a calculation using reasonable values for each (see below). Also the fact that we generate our own energy is critical to the calculation. How much energy would they need to generate if we do not absorb any energy for the radiance of the walls in the room?

Let's look at just energy lost through radiance (from Boltzmann topic):
tmiddles wrote:
...a person within the normal range could have 1.5 meters of skin, a temperature of 91F/33C/306K, and a emissivity of 0.97.

The calculation gives us:
Qt=σeAT^4
Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−723J/s=−723W

So a person as described has 723watts of radiance.
Which is a 723watt loss of energy due to radiance.

That sound about right?

IBdaMann wrote:Let's say you enter a 70degF room with your warm-blooded body maintaining your body temperature of 98.6degF ... if you absorb any radiance from anything, including the cooler walls or the cooler air, your body temperature must increase.

Not at all if energy can be both absorbed and emitted.
Edited on 26-08-2019 00:26
26-08-2019 02:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Not everyone is precisely 98.6F either, ...
I don't think your math question really applies, since we generate our own heat, the term 'warm-blooded'

Yes well said. There is a finite range of human variation but there is no reason we cannot do a calculation using reasonable values for each (see below). Also the fact that we generate our own energy is critical to the calculation. How much energy would they need to generate if we do not absorb any energy for the radiance of the walls in the room?

Let's look at just energy lost through radiance (from Boltzmann topic):
tmiddles wrote:
...a person within the normal range could have 1.5 meters of skin, a temperature of 91F/33C/306K, and a emissivity of 0.97.

The calculation gives us:
Qt=σeAT^4
Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−723J/s=−723W

So a person as described has 723watts of radiance.
Which is a 723watt loss of energy due to radiance.

That sound about right?

IBdaMann wrote:Let's say you enter a 70degF room with your warm-blooded body maintaining your body temperature of 98.6degF ... if you absorb any radiance from anything, including the cooler walls or the cooler air, your body temperature must increase.

Not at all if energy can be both absorbed and emitted.


But not everybody is going to immediately, or even respond to the hot cold thing. How you perceive your environment plays a small role in as well. The mind can trigger a response, even if there is no physical reason to do so. I grew up in a cold environment, moved to Florida. I seldom even need a light jacket during our winter. Quite a few of the people I work with bundle up, like they are expecting snow. I'm aware it's cold, just know it's not deadly cold. The heat doesn't bother me any more than others around me.

Now, obviously, people must shed some heat. You pack enough people in that room, it's going to warm up. Wonder if it would stop warming at 98.6 degrees...
26-08-2019 02:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
HarveyH55 wrote: You pack enough people in that room, it's going to warm up. Wonder if it would stop warming at 98.6 degrees...


Yes it would, unless that was a quarantine room for people with the flu


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
26-08-2019 03:05
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So a person has ...a 723watt loss of energy due to radiance.
...How you perceive your environment plays a small role in as well.


I should clarify the scale of wattage loss here. 100 watts is what it's calculated that a human actually puts out in net heat transfer, because they do absorb radiance from the environment. Net flow is the reality.

If you reject that the radiance of the walls can be absorbed at all then that's a 723 watt loss of energy with nothing in return.

If you also reject that the person can get any energy back from conduction, since the air in the room is also 22C and cooler then they are, then you're left with the ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY BEING FROM FOOD.

Correct?
Edited on 26-08-2019 03:29
26-08-2019 04:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
tmiddles wrote:
If you also reject that the person can get any energy back from conduction, since the air in the room is also 22C and cooler then they are, then you're left with the ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY BEING FROM FOOD.

Correct?


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.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
26-08-2019 04:22
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
GasGuzzler wrote:Yes, the only energy source is food, provided there is no light in the room.

Dark room (EXAMPLE 1.13) I would agree that's the only conclusion consistent with a belief that a cooler object's energy cannot be absorbed by a hotter object.

So are you comfortable with the calculation with loss of energy from radiance?:
Qt=σeAT^4
Qt=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)(306K)^4=−723J/s=−723W
Edited on 26-08-2019 04:23
26-08-2019 04:35
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
I was always taught that P=I*E. P is power, in watts, I is current in Amps, and E is voltage.

Qt=σeAT^4, makes no sense to me. Is that a metaphysics equation?
26-08-2019 04:38
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was always taught that P=I*E. P is power, in watts, I is current in Amps, and E is voltage.

Qt=σeAT^4, makes no sense to me. Is that a metaphysics equation?


No you were taught correctly for electrical current.

Qt=σeAT^4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for energy emitted as radiance. We are all shinning out radiance right now (night vision goggles would reveal that) and the equation calculates how much, also in watts.

A watt is one Joule per Second. So it's a rate of energy and doesn't have to be electrical current.
26-08-2019 18:10
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was always taught that P=I*E. P is power, in watts, I is current in Amps, and E is voltage.

Qt=σeAT^4, makes no sense to me. Is that a metaphysics equation?


No you were taught correctly for electrical current.

Qt=σeAT^4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for energy emitted as radiance. We are all shinning out radiance right now (night vision goggles would reveal that) and the equation calculates how much, also in watts.

A watt is one Joule per Second. So it's a rate of energy and doesn't have to be electrical current.


I was being sarcastic... The philosophers on the site probably caught it. Metaphysics is philosophy, by another name. Metaphysics, means 'next-to' physic, like two different books/subjects on the same shelf. On deals with the physical world, the other deals with everything else.
26-08-2019 19:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So a person has ...a 723watt loss of energy due to radiance.
...How you perceive your environment plays a small role in as well.


I should clarify the scale of wattage loss here. 100 watts is what it's calculated that a human actually puts out in net heat transfer, because they do absorb radiance from the environment. Net flow is the reality.

If you reject that the radiance of the walls can be absorbed at all then that's a 723 watt loss of energy with nothing in return.

If you also reject that the person can get any energy back from conduction, since the air in the room is also 22C and cooler then they are, then you're left with the ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY BEING FROM FOOD.

Correct?

Argument from randU fallacy. There is no net flow of heat or radiance.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
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.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
26-08-2019 23:05
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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.
26-08-2019 23:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
tmiddles wrote: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 have already answered this and you know where to look.

What was my answer? Come on. Easy for someone like you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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 1 of 212>





Join the debate What to think about this problem?:

Remember me

▲ 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