CO2 Experiments posted here

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reference the inverse square law...

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

You never explained why a one-way flow of energy would go faster or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings. Do the photons (or waves, for those who don't believe) go faster, or slower, or is the difference in speed due to the number of photons (or waves) that are emitted? And how does the warmer object know how fast to emit?

Please explain how your theory makes sense, in relation to the Stefan Boltzman Law.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy?

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a net flow of energy?

one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

If energy only flows one way, why does the temperature of the cooler have any impact on the speed of that flow? My understanding of physics can explain that easily.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelengths. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

And my understanding of physics fits with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, your understanding needs an amendment, to explain why a black body sometimes stops emitting, if another, warmer object approaches.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

This Science article agrees with my understanding of physics, net flow, not one way.
If your understanding was correct, one way flow only, how could they have made such a huge error?
This was 1963, you can't blame the warmers.

 

[Crick]

Good work Todd.

Your Science article agrees with EVERYONE'S understanding of radiative heat transfer. NOTHING agrees with SSDD's.

 

[SSDD]

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

You never explained why a one-way flow of energy would go faster or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings. Do the photons (or waves, for those who don't believe) go faster, or slower, or is the difference in speed due to the number of photons (or waves) that are emitted? And how does the warmer object know how fast to emit?

Please explain how your theory makes sense, in relation to the Stefan Boltzman Law.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy?

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a net flow of energy?

one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

If energy only flows one way, why does the temperature of the cooler have any impact on the speed of that flow? My understanding of physics can explain that easily.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelengths. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

And my understanding of physics fits with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, your understanding needs an amendment, to explain why a black body sometimes stops emitting, if another, warmer object approaches.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

This Science article agrees with my understanding of physics, net flow, not one way.
If your understanding was correct, one way flow only, how could they have made such a huge error?
This was 1963, you can't blame the warmers.

Ok. So let's see an observed measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm one at ambient temperature with no work having been done to make it happen. If everyone believes it someone must have seen and measured it.....let's see it

 

[Crick]

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy?

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a net flow of energy?

one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

If energy only flows one way, why does the temperature of the cooler have any impact on the speed of that flow? My understanding of physics can explain that easily.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelengths. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

And my understanding of physics fits with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, your understanding needs an amendment, to explain why a black body sometimes stops emitting, if another, warmer object approaches.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

This Science article agrees with my understanding of physics, net flow, not one way.
If your understanding was correct, one way flow only, how could they have made such a huge error?
This was 1963, you can't blame the warmers.

Ok. So let's see an observed measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm one at ambient temperature with no work having been done to make it happen. If everyone believes it someone must have seen and measured it.....let's see it

You've already had it. Toddster's textbook quote explaining that a human should radiate (lose) 1000W but that being surrounded by ~72F surroundings, his NET LOSS is only about 100W.

 

[Crick]

When are you going to give this up? Surely you can't believe YOU'VE got it right and every one else on Earth: the engineers and scientists and teachers...THEY'VE all got it wrong. It's time to say "oops, I misunderstood".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy?

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a net flow of energy?

one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

If energy only flows one way, why does the temperature of the cooler have any impact on the speed of that flow? My understanding of physics can explain that easily.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelengths. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

And my understanding of physics fits with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, your understanding needs an amendment, to explain why a black body sometimes stops emitting, if another, warmer object approaches.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

This Science article agrees with my understanding of physics, net flow, not one way.
If your understanding was correct, one way flow only, how could they have made such a huge error?
This was 1963, you can't blame the warmers.

Ok. So let's see an observed measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm one at ambient temperature with no work having been done to make it happen. If everyone believes it someone must have seen and measured it.....let's see it

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

This guy measured it.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says nothing about one way or smart waves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When are you going to give this up? Surely you can't believe YOU'VE got it right and every one else on Earth: the engineers and scientists and teachers...THEY'VE all got it wrong. It's time to say "oops, I misunderstood".

Everyone on his side of the AGW issue agrees he is wrong about this.

 

[Crick]

Everyone everywhere agrees he is wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD is Frankie boys peer, just uses more words for nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD is Frankie boys peer, just uses more words for nonsense.

And I keep wondering why you guys have only faked experiments as "evidence"

 

[Old Rocks]

Go back to your hollow moon, Frankie boy.

 

[jc456]

SSDD is Frankie boys peer, just uses more words for nonsense.

And I keep wondering why you guys have only faked experiments as "evidence"

 

[jc456]

Go back to your hollow moon, Frankie boy.

 

[SSDD]

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

This guy measured it.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says nothing about one way or smart waves.

And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.

Look at the equation.....
See the P...that is the net radiated power....The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings....the f'ing equation answers your question regarding different heat loss at different temperatures.

Again...look at the equation . P is net radiated power of the radiator...A is the radiating area....sigma is Stefan's constant....e is the emissivity.....T is the temperature of the radiator....and Tc is the temperature of the surroundings....increase the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you increase P....decrease the difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you decrease P. The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy...they are simply radiating less because the difference between their own temperature and the walls has decreased and thus P has decreased....there is no back radiation...they aren't gaining even the slightest trace of energy from the walls.

This equation describes a one way gross flow of energy

This is what the equation must look ike if you want to show a two way net flow of energy...
Interestingly enough, this version of the SB equation is used by climate science, but not hard physics...Hard science grasps that the SB law is stated in a particular manner because it describes a particular thing...that is, one way, gross energy flow....the soft science of climate science has no hesitation at altering a stated physical law to make it show what they wish it to show whether it is true or not.

There is no such thing as back radiation....energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.

Look at the equation.....
See the P...that is the net radiated power....The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings....the f'ing equation answers your question regarding different heat loss at different temperatures.

Again...look at the equation . P is net radiated power of the radiator...A is the radiating area....sigma is Stefan's constant....e is the emissivity.....T is the temperature of the radiator....and Tc is the temperature of the surroundings....increase the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you increase P....decrease the difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you decrease P. The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy...they are simply radiating less because the difference between their own temperature and the walls has decreased and thus P has decreased....there is no back radiation...they aren't gaining even the slightest trace of energy from the walls.

This equation describes a one way gross flow of energy

This is what the equation must look ike if you want to show a two way net flow of energy...
Interestingly enough, this version of the SB equation is used by climate science, but not hard physics...Hard science grasps that the SB law is stated in a particular manner because it describes a particular thing...that is, one way, gross energy flow....the soft science of climate science has no hesitation at altering a stated physical law to make it show what they wish it to show whether it is true or not.

There is no such thing as back radiation....energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task.

Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.
Ummmm...how is the cooling slowed if not from radiation emitted from the cooler room?
Who said they were gaining energy? Losing less.....NET.

The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings..

Again, why does something radiate faster, or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings?
It's because those surroundings are radiating right back. A lot simpler explanation than your one-way radiation or smart waves.

The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy

They aren't getting any net radiation. They are still losing energy.

....there is no back radiation

The guys in 1963 disagree with your claim.

energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task

What is energy in this context? Temperature. True, the warmer body does not rise in temperature....because it loses net energy. It loses more net energy, when the surroundings are colder (than when they are less cold) because those surroundings radiate less energy back the colder those surroundings are. Simple. No need for smart waves, smart photons or the sudden switching on or switching off of radiation, because the Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.

P is net radiated power of the radiator

I can agree with your above statement, for once. Net.

 

[SSDD]

Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.
Ummmm...how is the cooling slowed if not from radiation emitted from the cooler room?
Who said they were gaining energy? Losing less.....NET.

The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings..

Again, why does something radiate faster, or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings?
It's because those surroundings are radiating right back. A lot simpler explanation than your one-way radiation or smart waves.

The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy

They aren't getting any net radiation. They are still losing energy.

....there is no back radiation

The guys in 1963 disagree with your claim.

energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task

What is energy in this context? Temperature. True, the warmer body does not rise in temperature....because it loses net energy. It loses more net energy, when the surroundings are colder (than when they are less cold) because those surroundings radiate less energy back the colder those surroundings are. Simple. No need for smart waves, smart photons or the sudden switching on or switching off of radiation, because the Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.

P is net radiated power of the radiator

I can agree with your above statement, for once. Net.

And still the equation describes a 1 way gross energy flow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And still the equation describes a 1 way gross energy flow

And still the Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.
Because all objects radiate. Even if they're next to a warmer object.

 

[SSDD]

And still the Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.
Because all objects radiate. Even if they're next to a warmer object.

When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....

I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.

 

[mamooth]

And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.

Look at the equation.....

I'm looking, and I'm seeing a deliberate deception on your part. That equation represents

just as Todd said, but you're pretending it represents Pemit instead of Pnet.

 

[SSDD]

I'm looking, and I'm seeing a deliberate deception on your part. That equation represents

just as Todd said, but you're pretending it represents Pemit instead of Pnet.

Sorry, but that isn't at all what you are seeing...I believe you think it is what you are seeing, but it isn't...you are seeing an equation that describes a one way gross energy flow...I provided an equation that describes a two way flow with the net being towards warm...but that equation is not used in hard physics....it is only used by climate science in an effort to support the hoax. It is not valid and it is not how the SB law is written.

Your version of the equation would be written as follows:

.

That equation describes a two way energy flow but that equation is not the SB equation...it is mathematical modeling used to achieve a slight of hand....it doesn't describe an actual physical process as the actual SB equation does.