Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[IanC]

Retain heat, forever?

Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere..

The atmosphere itself generates heat?

Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it? Have any idea what it means?

I'm still waiting for your proof that the science says a 100 K object ceases radiating when a 200 K object approaches. Because the SB doesn't say that, not even a little bit.

Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time....lying about my position is getting to be a regular thing for you...are you really that dishonest?

The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold...one way with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the difference between the warm radiator and its cooler surroundings...I have never said anything more than that regarding the SB law...you, on the other hand make all sorts of claims that the SB law doesn't..

Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....

How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?

Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it?

I have. You feel that means that the atmosphere itself generates heat?

Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time

Then let's get you on the record.
Does a 100 K object sitting all by itself radiate?

The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold

It gives you the equation to calculate how fast energy will move from warm to cold.
I've never seen any reference to a one way flow and I've never seen you produce one.
Do you have one you've been saving?

actually the atmosphere does store energy from daytime solar input. as the atmosphere warms up it also 'puffs' up, storing potential energy which is later given up during night.

of course SSDD has never given an answer to me as to whether potential energy is incorporated into his 'theory' that states photons only radiate to cooler objects. microstates and degrees of freedom anyone?

 

[SSDD]

You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?

Of course it doesn't. Nobody except cult loons will say it does.

According to your deranged theory here, the fire extinguisher in my kitchen should be generating heat. Dammit, why am I using a furnace, when I could just get a couple more fire extinugishers? Basketball players should all be saying "ow!" as they touch the ball, because the compressed air inside would be constantly generating heat.

What's more, you could hook up such heat sources to a Stirling engine, and get free work out of it, forever. Perpetual motion, baby! Forget conservation of energy. Your cult's religion says energy can magically be created or destroyed whenever it's convenient for the cult.

Hey, the hairball rejects another physical law....second law of thermodynamics, Kirchhoffs law, and now the ideal gas laws.

The problem with your fire extinguisher hypothesis, is that the column of air in a fire extinguisher is static....as has been pointed out to you already, no such state of equilibrium could ever be reached in an open, dynamic atmosphere....for example, the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus, arguably the coldest place in the solar system is warmer than here on earth....pressure, hairball, pressure.

 

[SSDD]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

 

[IanC]

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

.

SSDD- you have stated on many occasions that a cooler object cannot radiate towards a warmer one. what does that mean then if not the radiation stopped?

and you still havent addressed the conservation of momentum aspect between two objects if the total amount of radiation is reduced in some way.

 

[Crick]

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it.... If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing? Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

Here is the problem,

."A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all [b,]perfect black bodies[/b]."

"Kirchhoff's perfect black bodies
Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality. They are theoretical fictions. "

You first need to show that the oceans are suffuciently close to thermal equilibrium and a black body in order to use Kirchhoff's Law in the oversimplified and overgeneralized manner that you do.

As the ocean is neither a perfect black body or in thermodynamic equilibrium, emmissivity and absorption are not necessarily identical.

You term "Poor emissivity" is insufficiently defined. Poor compared to what? What range of values is "poor"? Zero? Zero to .25? To .5? Below .8? Then, why is that "poor" in context of the problem?

Physics presents a set of ideal laws that are true under ideal situations which never occur in nature. They provide a starting point, not the solution.

the emission is always perfectly matched by the absorption.

Despite their different spectra?

 

[Crick]

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

Because that equation doesn't show any heat being generated.

 

[IanC]

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it.... If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing? Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

Here is the problem,

."A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all [b,]perfect black bodies[/b]."

"Kirchhoff's perfect black bodies
Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality. They are theoretical fictions. "

You first need to show that the oceans are suffuciently close to thermal equilibrium and a black body in order to use Kirchhoff's Law in the oversimplified and overgeneralized manner that you do.

As the ocean is neither a perfect black body or in thermodynamic equilibrium, emmissivity and absorption are not necessarily identical.

You term "Poor emissivity" is insufficiently defined. Poor compared to what? What range of values is "poor"? Zero? Zero to .25? To .5? Below .8? Then, why is that "poor" in context of the problem?

Physics presents a set of ideal laws that are true under ideal situations which never occur in nature. They provide a starting point, not the solution.

the emission is always perfectly matched by the absorption.

Despite their different spectra?

for any molecule in a defined condition the absorption MUST equal the emission and vice versa. how could it not? I am not saying the coefficient of emissivity is the same for all wavelengths, etc. I am saying for any particular wavelength, etc that it describes both the absorbtivity and and emission equally.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

You have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....

Excellent, an object above 0K continues to radiate, even if a warmer object is nearby.
I'm glad I was able to help you realize your earlier stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math?

Funny you should mention algebra.

Algebraically, how are these formulas different?

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

The formula itself doesn't show a one way flow.
Thanks for the names of the the textbooks, what about a link to where they say one way flow?

 

[jc456]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

You have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....

Excellent, an object above 0K continues to radiate, even if a warmer object is nearby.
I'm glad I was able to help you realize your earlier stupidity.

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math?

Funny you should mention algebra.

Algebraicly, how are these formulas different?

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close.

Then how does energy not flow from the cooler to the warmer?
Run through your mechanism. 600 C object, happily radiating. 800 C object placed nearby. Go!

It simply doesn't radiate in that direction. Do you find it equally strange that if you shoot two hoses toward each other and one has more pressure that the water from the weaker hose diverts....it still comes out of the hose, but can't spray in the direction the higher pressure is coming from...same with air...same with solid objects. Why do you think theoretical photons are exempt from the forces of nature that every other object in the universe are subject to?

Physicist Offers 10 000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....


It simply doesn't radiate in that direction.

Hmmmmm.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

You have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....

Excellent, an object above 0K continues to radiate, even if a warmer object is nearby.
I'm glad I was able to help you realize your earlier stupidity.

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

Do you know what absolute zero means?

 

[mamooth]

Hey, the hairball rejects another physical law....second law of thermodynamics, Kirchhoffs law, and now the ideal gas laws.

Pissdrinker, is there anybody left in your new-age religious cult besides yourself and buttboy? It's probably better that way. If you have a private kook universe, you can redefine physical laws at your leisure, and nobody will be around you to disagree.

The problem with your fire extinguisher hypothesis, is that the column of air in a fire extinguisher is static....as has been pointed out to you already, no such state of equilibrium could ever be reached in an open, dynamic atmosphere

And you squeal and run, abandoning your "a compressed gas generates heat!" theory. Good to know even you could understand how stupid that theory was.

....for example, the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus, arguably the coldest place in the solar system is warmer than here on earth....

So you're saying the coldest place in the universe is warmer than earth. Damn, that's stupid.

Oh, Uranus ... internal radioactive decay, Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, and an atmosphere that inhibits convection.

pressure, hairball, pressure.

Now you've revised your conspiracy to claim a static column of gas with a pressure gradient generates heat forever. Sadly for you, it's still a wild violation of conservation of energy, not to mention it's contradicted by observation, meaning it's a kook theory that only a screwball cultist could embrace.

This isn't rocket science. There is no free energy. _Compressing_ a gas generates heat, because work is being done on it. A gas sitting there in an unchanging compressed state does not generate heat.

 

[jc456]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

You have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....

Excellent, an object above 0K continues to radiate, even if a warmer object is nearby.
I'm glad I was able to help you realize your earlier stupidity.

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

Do you know what absolute zero means?

has anyone reached absolute zero?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

Yet another non answer. Getting more boring by the second.

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math? You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.

Yeah, I can too. Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:

A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.

You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".

Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.

PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

You have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....

Excellent, an object above 0K continues to radiate, even if a warmer object is nearby.
I'm glad I was able to help you realize your earlier stupidity.

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

Do you know what absolute zero means?

has anyone reached absolute zero?

has anyone reached absolute zero?

SSDD's IQ.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- you have stated on many occasions that a cooler object cannot radiate towards a warmer one. what does that mean then if not the radiation stopped?

Been through this before Ian, before I can answer the question....is heat a form of radiation, or is heat the fingerprint of radiation moving from one place to another.

 

[SSDD]

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

Who would have thought that the T in PV=nRT was superfluous? Here I was believing that if you know what P,V,n, & R were, you could calculate T (average). Maybe you should call science and tell them that the T is an error and P,V,n & R are all that is necessary in the ideal gas law...T is not truly part of the equation.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

never said anything like that...you are repeating your interpretation of what I said...ie you are a liar who apparently can't read words, absorb them, and repeat them without making some sort of change to them.

 

[SSDD]

Algebraically, how are these formulas different?

Algebraically, they are not different...we aren't discussing algebra though, we are discussing physics. Equations are the language of physics....equations describe physical processes... The first equation describes a one way energy flow with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the difference between T and Tc. The second equation describes a two way net flow with the magnitude of the net being determined by the difference between A(sigma T4)and A(sigma T4c)....the two equations describe different processes...in physics, if you are going to apply an algaebraic property to an equation describing a physical process, you must first justify the application of the property. Can you show in your textbook, or any of those I listed a justification for applying the distributive property to the SB equation....for that matter, if the equation didn't specifically describe a one way energy flow, why not just use the SB equation and claim that it describes a two way energy flow?

Thanks for the names of the the textbooks, what about a link to where they say one way flow?

You are under the impression that textbooks are published in their entirety on the internet? And again, if

did not describe a one way energy flow as I have been pointing out to you for all this time, why rewrite it this way

in the textbooks claiming two way energy flow? Why not simply write it as originally written and claim a two way flow as you do? Answer: because people who have some clue will point out that the actual equation describes a one way energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

What he is saying is that he believes in magic.

 

[SSDD]

Pissdrinker, is there anybody left in your new-age religious cult besides yourself and buttboy? It's probably better that way. If you have a private kook universe, you can redefine physical laws at your leisure, and nobody will be around you to disagree.

Sorry hairball, it is you who is redefining physical laws...so far, the second law of thermodynamics, the SB law, Kirchhoffs law, and the ideal gas law. Any more?

And you squeal and run, abandoning your "a compressed gas generates heat!" theory. Good to know even you could understand how stupid that theory was.

Sorry, hairball, it is you who is squealing and redefining physical laws. I doubt that Maxwell will sway your tenacious grasp on your dogma, but here is what he had to say...

=Maxwell]
Maxwell discussed convective equilibrium in his book Theory of Heat, 1888, pp. 330-331:
”The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical column of a gas were left to itself, till by the conduction of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium, the temperature would be the same throughout [i.e. isothermal"], or, in other words, gravity produces no effect in making the bottom of the column hotter or colder than the top. This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same ; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material.”

”This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.
In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29.

So you're saying the coldest place in the universe is warmer than earth. Damn, that's stupid.

So you can't read, comprehend, and repeat what you read either....are you stupid or so dishonest that you have no choice... I said that Uranus is arguably the coldest place in the solar system....simple statement, sorry you are so stupid that you can't read such a statement and repeat it. And I said that the bottom of the troposphere is warmer than earth. Afraid that you are the stupid one here.

Oh, Uranus ... internal radioactive decay, Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, and an atmosphere that inhibits convection.

Sorry again, hairball....you might make such a connection to a degree with saturn and jupiter as they radiate more energy than they absorb from the sun...not so with uranus. Dogma only carries you so far, then it will trip you up so that you fall flat on your stupid face.

Now you've revised your conspiracy to claim a static column of gas with a pressure gradient generates heat forever. Sadly for you, it's still a wild violation of conservation of energy, not to mention it's contradicted by observation, meaning it's a kook theory that only a screwball cultist could embrace.

Argue with Maxwell.

This isn't rocket science. There is no free energy. _Compressing_ a gas generates heat, because work is being done on it. A gas sitting there in an unchanging compressed does not generate heat.

[/quote]

So now the atmosphere is sitting there in an unchanging static state? Good one hairball.