Remember me
▼ Content

william happer



Page 1 of 4123>>>
william happer27-11-2021 03:43
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
I have been looking at the work of William Happer.He brings a reality to the debate.The main thing I am getting is how the Alarmists try to bring down his reasoning.There seems to be no limit to how far the extremists will go to protect their faith


duncan61
27-11-2021 17:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:I have been looking at the work of William Happer.He brings a reality to the debate.

In what way?

Would you agree that someone touting many physics credentials has no excuse for getting it so very, very wrong?


.
27-11-2021 20:57
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
I sat through 2 of his lectures and found his work to be very believable.
.CO2 is helping green the Earth
.There is no climate emergency
.Short wave energy comes from the sun
.Long wave energy leaves the Earths surface
.The atmosphere takes time to heat and cool
Which specific points are not right
27-11-2021 20:57
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
I sat through 2 of his lectures and found his work to be very believable.
.CO2 is helping green the Earth
.There is no climate emergency
.Short wave energy comes from the sun
.Long wave energy leaves the Earths surface
.The atmosphere takes time to heat and cool
Which specific points are not right
27-11-2021 21:49
keepit
★★★★★
(2448)
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.
Edited on 27-11-2021 21:50
27-11-2021 23:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
keepit wrote:Duncan, You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.

In keepit-physics, electromagnetic radiation can be slowed to speeds less than the speed of light.

In keepit-physics, Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't exist.

In keepit-physics, bodies of matter can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional thermal energy.
Attached image:

28-11-2021 00:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:I have been looking at the work of William Happer.He brings a reality to the debate.The main thing I am getting is how the Alarmists try to bring down his reasoning.There seems to be no limit to how far the extremists will go to protect their faith

Nor is there any limit to how far you will go to protect your faith.

You obviously support William Happer because he preaches your precious religious dogma, which demonizes warmizombies. The problem I have with William Happer and with you both is that you thoroughly discredit/undermine the arguments against warmizombies. To accept your particular arguments against warmizombies is to totally legitimize warmizombie arguments about Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change. Stupid.

Example. It is bad to drink Drain-O. If I were to tell some stupid millennials that they shouldn't drink Drain-O because if they do, men from Mars will burn their hair, they will probably realize that men from Mars will not burn their hair and thus will feel that drinking Drain-O is something that should be done.

Similarly, William Happer says that warmizombies are wrong because CO2 doesn't increase the average global temperature nearly as much as warmizombies claim. Integral to that position is the erroneous warmizombie dogma that CO2 has the magical superpower to cause bodies of matter to somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional thermal energy.

So because William Happer is an expert in optics, he decided to market himself as a "scientist" who knows "a lot about Climate" because there is more money in it apparently. He is a fraud. He exhibits the same scientific illiteracy as warmizombies. Exactly the same. He has single-handedly rendered all his "credentials" totally worthless. He is without credibility. William Happer is the Bill Nye of the warmizombie-haters.

Duncan, see if you can get William Happer to post on this board. I'd like to ask him a few questions.

.
28-11-2021 01:36
keepit
★★★★★
(2448)
ibd,
As usual, your response to my post is full of errors.
28-11-2021 02:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
keepit wrote:ibd, As usual, your response to my post is full of errors.

That's what you say about every response that is error-free.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 03:14
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.


You infer I forgot this however I did not list all the factors on how the Atmosphere works.I suggest you watch one of his presentations how a chart shows the greenhouse effect of CO2 and it is minimal at best compared to so many other things.Bjorn lomborg is on a similar bent.The extra manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is a win/win as plants are growing better its slightly warmer which is very nice and their is no bad side.30 years of records show no increase in cyclones flooding or anything.Where I live there is no sea level rise and it can be measured.Some accept there is a millimetre or 2 a year difference so what.Fort Denison in Sydney harbour shows no rise either.None at all in 170 years.I have learned on this forum that IBDM seems to wish to own it.Have you seen the 19 pages of nonsense on crypto currency.As this unfolded I have been to the same websites and the fool is just plagiarizing the same stuff I am reading.There is a greenhouse effect there is fossil fuel Coal is coal not pure carbon.Its made from dead trees and organic matter.The temperature on my desktop thermometer is 26.9C right now where it is.The CO2 where Ava and I are sitting is 474ppm if I take it outside it will go to around 400ppm.ITN and IBDM keep quoting these long dead scientists laws however it is their interpretation of these laws that are not right.Again I have read the same laws but do not get the same meaning.Have either of you ever done a bible study?


duncan61
28-11-2021 03:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3908)
Only half the planet is exposed to the sun, at any given moment. The planet is round, even the exposed half, isn't evenly exposed. We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface. Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space. Some gets converted and used for other things. Lot of chemical processes, solar panels, and well LIFE. It's a very complicated planet. A whole lot of stuff going on all at the same time, slightly influencing each other. Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time, instantaneously. We tend to reduce everything to the simplest form we can manage to comprehend, omitting as much as possible, as insignificant. Climate Change omits everything that doesn't conveniently support their agenda,
28-11-2021 03:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
HarveyH55 wrote: We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface.

This individual point is irrelevant. If any of the sun's EM is absorbed by something other than the surface then its temperature increases and it radiates commensurably more.

The atmosphere and everything in it are all part of the earth. All things that comprise "the earth" are rolled up into the earth's EMISSIVITY value and the entire process is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.


HarveyH55 wrote: Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space.

Technically, you have to treat it like it does. The earth is in equilibrium. Sure, some EM is converted by plants into chlorophyll, for example. If you add it all together the quantity is negligible to the extent that zero is the best approximation. Similarly, human activity causes work to be performed that converts other forms of energy into thermal energy. All of this combined comprises a negligible global temperature increase which is best approximated as zero.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time,

Fortunately for us, we have Stefan-Boltzmann which rolls it all up together very nicely. When one learns Stefan-Boltzmann, the wamizombie dogma becomes exposed for the egregious and glaring error 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
28-11-2021 04:09
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3908)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface.

This individual point is irrelevant. If any of the sun's EM is absorbed by something other than the surface then its temperature increases and it radiates commensurably more.

The atmosphere and everything in it are all part of the earth. All things that comprise "the earth" are rolled up into the earth's EMISSIVITY value and the entire process is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.


HarveyH55 wrote: Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space.

Technically, you have to treat it like it does. The earth is in equilibrium. Sure, some EM is converted by plants into chlorophyll, for example. If you add it all together the quantity is negligible to the extent that zero is the best approximation. Similarly, human activity causes work to be performed that converts other forms of energy into thermal energy. All of this combined comprises a negligible global temperature increase which is best approximated as zero.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time,

Fortunately for us, we have Stefan-Boltzmann which rolls it all up together very nicely. When one learns Stefan-Boltzmann, the wamizombie dogma becomes exposed for the egregious and glaring error that it is.


.


Negligible... See, you do it too. Dismiss everything that doesn't directly, or significantly influence you agenda. you want to reduce a complex system, to the most simplest, single form. More efficient that way. The system works, as a sum of all the tiny parts, many of which get dismissed, as negligible...
28-11-2021 04:12
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \sigma T^{4}.
The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, is derived from other known physical constants. Since 2019, the value of the constant is

{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}
where k is the Boltzmann constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The radiance from a specified angle of view (watts per square metre per steradian) is given by

{\displaystyle L={\frac {j^{\star }}{\pi }}={\frac {\sigma }{\pi }}T^{4}.} L = \frac{j^{\star}}\pi = \frac\sigma\pi T^{4}.
A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity, {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon <1}{\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon <1}:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
The radiant emittance {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} has dimensions of energy flux (energy per unit time per unit area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. {\displaystyle \varepsilon }\varepsilon is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1}\varepsilon=1. In the still more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, {\displaystyle \varepsilon =\varepsilon (\lambda )}\varepsilon=\varepsilon(\lambda).

To find the total power radiated from an object, multiply by its surface area, {\displaystyle A}A:

{\displaystyle P=Aj^{\star }=A\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} P= A j^{\star} = A \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
Wavelength- and subwavelength-scale particles,[1] metamaterials,[2] and other nanostructures are not subject to ray-optical limits and may be designed to exceed the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

So because of this law nothing can change or vary even if the atmosphere changes composition.Now that is having faith!!
28-11-2021 04:20
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
Go Harvey.I feel like we are chasing the Bismark and going to execute her
28-11-2021 04:21
keepit
★★★★★
(2448)
ibd,
Can you see that there is a time interval between when co2 absorbs long wave radiation from the earth and when that energy is reemitted to outer space?
28-11-2021 05:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
keepit wrote:ibd, Can you see that there is a time interval between when co2 absorbs long wave radiation from the earth and when that energy is reemitted to outer space?

keepit, can you see that your scientifically illiteracy-spawned gibber-babble is totally hilarious?

How long is an "instantaneous" time interval?

Doesn't something have to be the same thing to be re-emitted?

Do you mistakenly believe that you are making some sort of point?

Your C-clamp might be on backwards.




.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 06:37
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
Keepit.It is important to realise the slowing of energy is occuring at the surface at a millimetre from the surface.The thing in the sky is called clouds.The NASA drawing is wrong heat does not go down.I challenged this at my warmerzombie meeting and was told it was so children can understand.So we are missinforming the chidren.Some things like water vapour and CO2 are greenhouse gasses as they slow the energy leaving.There is no energy apart from the sunlight.Some gasses like oxygen do not slow the energy.Nothing is coming back from anywhere.There is no heat hiding in the ocean.It all rises.The stratosphere is not warming.its cold as hell up there.We have many devices Balloons etc that can be sent to many altitudes and it gets colder as you go up.It can not be warming higher again heat rises.Ignore Fwit IBDM as soon as the debate goes to insults they are losing/have lost
Edited on 28-11-2021 06:39
28-11-2021 06:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts the RADIANCE from a black body as

RADIANCE = Power/Area = Emissivity * SB_Const * Absolute_Temperature^4

duncan61 wrote: The radiance from a specified angle of view (watts per square metre per steradian) is given by

There is no "angle" component. See above.

duncan61 wrote:A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body)

There is no such thing as a grey body. There is no such thing as a white body.
There is no such thing as a perfect black body. All bodies of matter in nature are black bodies. All bodies of matter absorb less than 100% of incident radiation. The term "black body" refers to the thermal radiation which is "black" in the science model because it is usually outside the visible spectrum (very hot things like the sun are obvious exceptions).

A black body's EMISSIVITY value specifies the percentage of incident radiation that it absorbs (considering all wavelengths). Angle of incidence is not considered.

duncan61 wrote:The radiant emittance ...

You can just write "the radiance".

duncan61 wrote: ... has dimensions of energy flux (

When you simply copy-paste without bothering to try to understand you write stupid crap like this that nobody is going to understand. I know you think that by totally plagiarizing something from the internet that everyone will think you are smart. Perhaps keepit will but you aren't likely to fool anyone else.

duncan61 wrote:So because of this law nothing can change or vary even if the atmosphere changes composition.Now that is having faith!!

Now that you have hurled your sarcasm, back it up. Show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere without adding thermal energy will increase the earth's average global temperature.

I'm all eyes.



.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 07:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
I have found the chart by Plank and Schwarschild but can not post it.Be a darling and post it for me so we can discuss further
28-11-2021 08:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:I have found the chart by Plank and Schwarschild but can not post it.Be a darling and post it for me so we can discuss further

I don't know what you mean by "the chart" nor do I see how any chart could be of any value without you having some sort of point to make.

Be a darling and make a clear, unambiguous point so that we at least have something to discuss.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 08:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:Some things like water vapour and CO2 are greenhouse gasses as they slow the energy leaving.

Gibber-babble. Your WACKY religion won't dare get any science on its hands.

How does greenhouse gas empower the earth to violate Stefan-Boltzmann?

duncan61 wrote: It is important to realise the slowing of energy is occuring at the surface at a millimetre from the surface.

Let's ignore, for the moment, that this is nonsensical gibber-babble. Why should anyone believe that this is, in some way, important?

Furthermore, how did you discover the precise location of greenhouse gas' violation of Stefan-Boltzmann?

You are most likely a lost cause.

duncan61 wrote:There is no energy apart from the sunlight.

So what is causing the global average temperature to increase considering that there is no additional thermal energy?

Oh, that's right, greenhouse gas' magical superpower. I forgot.

duncan61 wrote:Some gasses like oxygen do not slow the energy.

Too funny. Why aren't we cooking with greenhouse gas? Wouldn't that be cheaper and more effective?

duncan61 wrote:There is no heat hiding in the ocean.

There is an awful lot of heat occurring in the ocean.

duncan61 wrote:It all rises.

Doesn't heat flow in all directions equally? Answer: Yes, it does.

duncan61 wrote:The stratosphere is not warming.its cold as hell up there.

Are you saying that air molecules way up in the daytime stratosphere don't reach extremely high temperatures?

duncan61 wrote:Ignore Fwit IBDM as soon as the debate goes to insults they are losing/have lost

Yes, please ignore me and I'll go right on insulting you ... by simply pointing out the stupid things you write. You're a moron. You deserve to be chirping with keepit. Neither of you make any sense. Neither of you know how to formulate an argument. Neither of you know any science or math or logic or economics but you both damn sure have egregiously erroneous opinions across the board. Both of you become increasingly and deliberately stupid the more others try to help you.

It's too funny.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 08:52
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
Lets start at the beginning I might learn something.Longwave radiation comes in from the sun at different angles depending on where you are.Shortwave radiation is emmitted back to space.The atmosphere slows the energy leaving because air has 3 molecule gasses in its composition CO2 NO2 H2O and CH4 other elements like oxygen and nitrogen play no part.Is this right or there are no other gasses
28-11-2021 09:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:Lets start at the beginning

OK, then let's start at the beginning.

The sun emits a certain power of electromagnetic radiation incident to the earth. This power must travel to earth and therefore weakens per the inverse-square law and is therefore divided by that distance squared. Of this quantity, only the earth's EMISSIVITY percentage is absorbed by the earth. Unfortunately, this value is not known by anyone. Nonetheless, the earth's absorption equation is

Power_Absorbed = Incident_Solar_Power * Earth_Emissivity / Distance^2

Because the earth is in equilibrium, Power_Emitted = Power_Absorbed

duncan61 wrote:Longwave radiation comes in from the sun at different angles depending on where you are.Shortwave radiation is emmitted back to space.

Some parts of this are incorrect, the rest is irrelevant. See above.

duncan61 wrote:The atmosphere slows the energy leaving

Nope. What do you believe this even means? Are you imagining light being slowed to less than the speed of light? Both keepit and you insist on the word "slowed" and it's comical.

duncan61 wrote:because air has 3 molecule gasses in its composition CO2 NO2 H2O and CH4 other elements like oxygen and nitrogen play no part.Is this right or there are no other gasses

This is all gibber-babble. No substance has any magical superpowers to make light travel slower than the speed of light. No substance has the magical superpower to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

You and I both were hoping that you might finally learn something on this topic. Let's see if you can learn the following:

RADIANCE and TEMPERATURE necessarily move in the same direction. This means that if TEMPERATURE increases then RADIANCE necessarily increases. If you tell me that earth's RADIANCE has decreased then you have necessarily told me that earth's TEMPERATURE has decreased, not increased. If anyone ever tells you that earth's TEMPERATURE increases with a corresponding decrease in RADIANCE, you can safely call boooolsch't. For example, let's say keepit tells you that greenhouse gases reduce earth's thermal radiation into space (i.e. they decrease earth's RADIANCE) which warms the earth (i.e. which increases earth's TEMPERATURE) then you can confidently remind keepit that he is a moron.


So there you have the death of Greenhouse Effect. Stefan-Boltzmann kills it dead before it even gets started.


[*FIND-Stefan-Boltzmann_kills_Greenhouse_Effect]


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 18:21
keepit
★★★★★
(2448)
ibdm,
You misunderstand greenhouse warming. Check with google to understand the interaction between an atmosphere and the sb law. Even though there is an interaction, the sb law is still valid.
28-11-2021 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
keepit wrote:ibdm,You misunderstand greenhouse warming.

keepit, you are the scientifically illiterate moron, not I. All misunderstanding is on your end.

Do you claim that Greenhouse Effect causes an increase in average global temperature?

If you answer "no" then we're done.
If you answer "yes" then you must then explain from whence the additional thermal energy was generated. If you are claiming that it was created out of nothing then you are violating thermodynamics. If you absurdly claim that it's merely "accumulated" due to inexplicable magically miraculous reduction of earth's radiance then you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann as well as violating basic chemistry.

Choose your poison.



.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 22:15
keepit
★★★★★
(2448)
The energy comes from the sun ok. The co2 absorbs ir radiations coming off the earth causing a net increase in temp. It's not complicated. Do you see the time interval that results when co2 absorbs ir?
That time interval results in a slowing of energy loss relative to the time it would take for that ir to leave at the speed of light, hence , slowing. When the heated co2 reemits ir, it emits in all directions including back toward earth. It all adds up to slowing.
The sun is delivering energy faster than the earth is releasing it. It's simple.
Edited on 28-11-2021 22:20
28-11-2021 22:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
keepit wrote:The energy comes from the sun ok.

... and was the sun already there before the introduction of the new greenhouse gas?

If you answer "yes" then you aren't accounting for any additional energy now are you? ... or you are confessing that you are creating energy out of nothing.

You did not answer the question, are you claiming that Greenhouse Effect causes an increase in average global temperature? Since I don't recall you making this claim I don't see any reason to think that you believe it ... and we are done.

keepit wrote:The co2 absorbs ir radiations coming off the earth

Big deal. So does absolutely everything else.

keepit wrote:causing a net increase in temp.

Nope. The earth is in equilibrium. It radiates away exactly as much as it absorbs. The net change is zero.

It's not complicated.

keepit wrote:Do you see the time interval that results when co2 absorbs ir?

This is another question you did not answer. The ball is in your court.

How long is an instantaneous time interval?

keepit wrote:That time interval results in a slowing of energy loss relative to the time it would take for that ir to leave at the speed of light, hence , slowing.

No, no and no. This is total gibber-babble. You need to explain specifically and unambiguously what you mean by slowing light.

You are the one insisting on using the word "slows" so explain it. How is light slowed.

By the way, I notice that the earth hasn't already incinerated itself from billions of years of this type of energy buildup. This is my conspicuous clue that your name is Bozo.

keepit wrote:Takt not that when the heated co2 reemits ir,

All substances radiate IR, whether "heated" or not and no substances "re-emit" anything. Whatever a substance emits thermally is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann, not by what it absorbed. You should take a physics class.

You need to answer some questions or I think we're done.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2021 23:58
keepit
★★★★★
(2448)
we're done.
29-11-2021 01:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
keepit wrote:we're done.

Congratulations on your revelation. You'll find it so much easier if you simply pay attention next time. This stuff is not difficult.

.


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
29-11-2021 10:37
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
IBDM wrote There is no "angle" component. See above.
The energy from the sun is not always direct.Most of it is coming at an angle most of the time.It radiates out straight up.

IBDM wrote All substances radiate IR, whether "heated" or not and no substances "re-emit" anything. Whatever a substance emits thermally is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann, not by what it absorbed. You should take a physics class.

This is a good explanation to prove the reality that the atmosphere takes time to warm and cool because of the IR.You can nit pick the wording but the reality is without an atmosphere the temperature would be vastly different.
I have no issue with some recorded places on Earth showing a slight warming with or without homogenising the crap out of it to suit the agenda but the alarmists have miscalculated and attributed this warming 100% to manmade CO2 which is where it all falls down.CDN gives a graph of recorded temperatures from spots with 100 year gap and they are near Identical.Ontario has shown no increase at all.The stations all along the Alps at 3000 ft have shown no increase and this is through 3 nations.Donny brook West Australia was presented and there has been no increase.The places are picked where there has been continues recording at the same place.

IBDM wrote Doesn't heat flow in all directions equally? Answer: Yes, it does.
I am launching all turrets at this one.Too easy
Hot air balloons do not suddenly fall out the sky.Hot water units feed in the bottom and you draw from the top as hot water rises.The unit at my house is a Rheem Stellar storage gas called a 330 Litre even though its capacity is 185 Litres its recovery will allow to draw 330 Litres before the water becomes tepid.Hot water never sinks unless by mechanical action.I can direct my LPG blow lamp directionaly but eventualy the heat created by burning fuel will rise and continue to do so till equilibrium.
Damn straddled you.maybe I will get a hit with the next salvo
Edited on 29-11-2021 10:38
29-11-2021 17:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:The energy from the sun is not always direct.Most of it is coming at an angle most of the time.

This is totally irrelevant. Reread my post elucidating Stefan-Boltzmann and notice that there is no "angle" component.

Once you have done that, specify what part of blackbody science you deny.

duncan61 wrote:This is a good explanation to prove the reality that the atmosphere takes time to warm and cool because of the IR.

Duncan, you have zeroed-in on yet another totally irrelevant item. Are you operating under the assumption that the earth is not in equilibrium?

duncan61 wrote:You can nit pick the wording but the reality is without an atmosphere the temperature would be vastly different.

Duncan, you are brilliant! Let me see if I get this right ... the earth's atmosphere would be a totally different temperature if the earth had no atmosphere? What a concept. I think you're onto something.

Just out of curiosity, what is the temperature of a non-existent atmosphere?

Now try to answer the only relevant question on the table: Would the earth's average global temperature be any different without an atmosphere? Stefan-Boltzmann says "no." What do you say? Oh, and explain your answer with something relevant if you disagree.

duncan61 wrote:I have no issue with some recorded places on Earth showing a slight warming with or without homogenising the crap out of it

... because you have a deeply religious NEED for Greenhouse Effect to be "real". You will deny science and you will drift into the totally irrelevant in order to keep your faith fantasy alive.

I go with science. I do take issue with the stupid claim that the earth's average global temperature spontaneously increases without additional thermal energy simply because some religious faith bestows divine, miraculous superpowers to things in nature.

duncan61 wrote:... the alarmists have miscalculated and attributed this warming 100% to manmade CO2 which is where it all falls down.

... because it is all actually caused by Gravity's divine, miraculous superpower instead?

duncan61 wrote:I am launching all turrets at this one.Too easy

I'm glad you feel that way. This is going to be fun.

duncan61 wrote:Hot air balloons do not suddenly fall out the sky.Hot water units feed in the bottom and you draw from the top as hot water rises.

I have long since realized that you have no idea what heat is, but I never realized that you thought heat was a balloon and that it is also water as well as being other things.

Wow. Did you ever go to school?

So, perform this little experiment and tell me your results: Make a frying pan as hot as you can, e.g. use a stove, a torch, whatever. Get it very, very, very, very hot. Now, while you are standing, place the frying pan on top of your uncovered head. Your head should feel cool as the frying pan's cold will descend into your head and your head's heat will rise into the frying pan, yes?

Too easy. Too funny. Learn what heat is. Hint: it is not a balloon, nor is it water. While you are at it, learn what fluid dynamics is and learn why convection is not conduction and is not thermal radiation. They are different things and you shouldn't be pointing to one while trying to explain the other.

duncan61 wrote: but eventualy the heat created by burning fuel will rise

Nope. Heat will flow in all directions. Learn what heat 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
29-11-2021 17:23
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1492)
Are you claiming hot air does not rise.hot water does not rise. Yeast in bread does not rise.my private's do not rise because I abuse alcohol.the moon has little to no atmosphere and conditions are very different.my spidey senses tell me you are beaten Oik
29-11-2021 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10662)
duncan61 wrote:Are you claiming hot air does not rise.

Fluid dynamics. Hot air "rises" (moves in the direction opposite gravity) in cold air because cold air "sinks" (moves in the direction of gravity) in hot air.

Physics. Heat flows in all directions.

Education of Infants. Heat is neither air, water nor a balloon.

So, you refuse to learn what heat is. Prepare to be eternally confused.

So what were the results of your experiment with the frying pan?

.


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
29-11-2021 18:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16748)
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.


You cannot trap light, keepit. You cannot reduce entropy for any reason. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot reduce the emitted light by increasing Earth's temperature. You are AGAIN ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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
29-11-2021 18:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16748)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
As usual, your response to my post is full of errors.


That is correct. YOUR errors.


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
29-11-2021 18:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16748)
duncan61 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.


You infer I forgot this however I did not list all the factors on how the Atmosphere works.I suggest you watch one of his presentations how a chart shows the greenhouse effect of CO2 and it is minimal at best compared to so many other things.

It is ZERO. There is no effect. Zero. Nada. Nan. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing or to reduce entropy in any way.
duncan61 wrote:
Bjorn lomborg is on a similar bent.The extra manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is a win/win as plants are growing better its slightly warmer which is very nice and their is no bad side.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. The global CO2 content in Earth's atmosphere is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
30 years of records show no increase in cyclones flooding or anything.Where I live there is no sea level rise and it can be measured.

The global sea level cannot be measured. It is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
Some accept there is a millimetre or 2 a year difference so what.

Some accept that reincarnation occurs too. See Buddhism.
duncan61 wrote:
Fort Denison in Sydney harbour shows no rise either.None at all in 170 years.

This single tidal station only shows a relative measurement. It does not show global sea level or even the height of Fort Denison.
duncan61 wrote:
I have learned on this forum that IBDM seems to wish to own it.

Bulverism fallacy. IBD does not own science or mathematics. You are simply denying both of them.
duncan61 wrote:
Have you seen the 19 pages of nonsense on crypto currency.As this unfolded I have been to the same websites and the fool is just plagiarizing the same stuff I am reading.

Crypto currency is not science or statistical mathematics, both of which YOU are denying. Straw man fallacy.
duncan61 wrote:
There is a greenhouse effect

None. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor can reduce entropy in any way. No gas or vapor can heat anything warmer than itself (such as Earth's surface). No gas or vapor has the capability to trap or slow light to less then the speed of light.
duncan61 wrote:
there is fossil fuel

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
duncan61 wrote:
Coal is coal not pure carbon.

Coal is basically pure carbon. Any impurities in it do not burn. Higher quality coal is fewer impurities.
duncan61 wrote:
Its made from dead trees and organic matter.

The origin of coal is unknown. There is, however, plenty of it. Coal is cheap.
duncan61 wrote:
The temperature on my desktop thermometer is 26.9C right now where it is.

So? That tells you NOTHING about the temperature anywhere else.
duncan61 wrote:
The CO2 where Ava and I are sitting is 474ppm if I take it outside it will go to around 400ppm.

So? That tells you NOTHING about the CO2 concentration anywhere else.
duncan61 wrote:
ITN and IBDM keep quoting these long dead scientists laws however it is their interpretation of these laws that are not right.

A theory of science stands on it's own. It does not depend on whether the one that created is alive or dead. Straw man fallacy.
There is no 'interpretation'. These laws are expressed as math equations. They do not change.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: E = C*e*t^4 where 'E' is emitted radiance (electromagnetic energy) over a square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot reduce entropy for any reason.
You cannot keep light from being emitted as temperature increases.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

YOU CAN'T DO IT. No way. No how. No 'greenhouse' effect. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nan.

duncan61 wrote:
Again I have read the same laws but do not get the same meaning.

Because you are denying these laws.
duncan61 wrote:
Have either of you ever done a bible study?

Theories of science aren't scripture. Religion is not science. Science is not religion. Religion is not mathematics. Mathematics is not religion.


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
29-11-2021 18:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16748)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only half the planet is exposed to the sun, at any given moment. The planet is round, even the exposed half, isn't evenly exposed. We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface. Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space. Some gets converted and used for other things. Lot of chemical processes, solar panels, and well LIFE. It's a very complicated planet. A whole lot of stuff going on all at the same time, slightly influencing each other. Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time, instantaneously. We tend to reduce everything to the simplest form we can manage to comprehend, omitting as much as possible, as insignificant. Climate Change omits everything that doesn't conveniently support their agenda,


No. EVERYTHING that is absorbed from the Sun is emitted back out into space again. Everything.

Just because it parks for a short while as chemical energy in a plant makes no difference.
Just because a solar panel converted some of that energy into electricity makes no difference.

Chemical energy has no temperature. Electricity has no temperature.

ALL of it will radiate back out into space again, sooner or later. The chemical energy is released back into thermal energy or light again. The electricity is converted back into thermal or light again.


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
29-11-2021 18:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16748)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface.

This individual point is irrelevant. If any of the sun's EM is absorbed by something other than the surface then its temperature increases and it radiates commensurably more.

The atmosphere and everything in it are all part of the earth. All things that comprise "the earth" are rolled up into the earth's EMISSIVITY value and the entire process is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.


HarveyH55 wrote: Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space.

Technically, you have to treat it like it does. The earth is in equilibrium. Sure, some EM is converted by plants into chlorophyll, for example. If you add it all together the quantity is negligible to the extent that zero is the best approximation. Similarly, human activity causes work to be performed that converts other forms of energy into thermal energy. All of this combined comprises a negligible global temperature increase which is best approximated as zero.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time,

Fortunately for us, we have Stefan-Boltzmann which rolls it all up together very nicely. When one learns Stefan-Boltzmann, the wamizombie dogma becomes exposed for the egregious and glaring error that it is.


.


Negligible... See, you do it too. Dismiss everything that doesn't directly, or significantly influence you agenda. you want to reduce a complex system, to the most simplest, single form. More efficient that way. The system works, as a sum of all the tiny parts, many of which get dismissed, as negligible...

Complexity fallacy. You are denying Thevenin's law. All nodes of energy can be combined into a single representation of the same energy.

ALL energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun is radiated back out again. It doesn't matter if the conversion is to chemical energy (which has no temperature) or electricity (which has no temperature). ALL of it will be radiated back out again, sooner or later.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


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
29-11-2021 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16748)
duncan61 wrote:
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \sigma T^{4}.
The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, is derived from other known physical constants. Since 2019, the value of the constant is

{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}
where k is the Boltzmann constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The radiance from a specified angle of view (watts per square metre per steradian) is given by

{\displaystyle L={\frac {j^{\star }}{\pi }}={\frac {\sigma }{\pi }}T^{4}.} L = \frac{j^{\star}}\pi = \frac\sigma\pi T^{4}.
A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity, {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon <1}{\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon <1}:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
The radiant emittance {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} has dimensions of energy flux (energy per unit time per unit area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. {\displaystyle \varepsilon }\varepsilon is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1}\varepsilon=1. In the still more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, {\displaystyle \varepsilon =\varepsilon (\lambda )}\varepsilon=\varepsilon(\lambda).

To find the total power radiated from an object, multiply by its surface area, {\displaystyle A}A:

{\displaystyle P=Aj^{\star }=A\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} P= A j^{\star} = A \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
Wavelength- and subwavelength-scale particles,[1] metamaterials,[2] and other nanostructures are not subject to ray-optical limits and may be designed to exceed the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.
duncan61 wrote:
So because of this law nothing can change or vary even if the atmosphere changes composition.

That is correct. There is no term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law that specifies material.
duncan61 wrote:
Now that is having faith!!

Nope. That is simply the law and the theory as written. You are trying to add terms to the equation. There is no term for material. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate william happer:

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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact