New Study Finds that Present CO2 Levels are Capable of Melting Large Portions of East and West Antar

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said that objects at equilibrium cease radiating. That is your misinterpretation of SB.

I said, if you set T and Tc to the same number, P=0....P is the radiating power of the radiator. Zero has a specific mathematical meaning. Your interpretation is not the same as the actual equation...I take the equation, and all the observations, and measurements ever made regarding it at face value...two way energy movement has never been observed, or measured...you favor the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model over reality...I favor reality.

I said, if you set T and Tc to the same number, P=0

Yes, we know, net energy lost is zero.

Still no luck finding a source that agrees with your misinterpretation?
It's been years. You should have at least a couple.

...two way energy movement has never been observed, or measured..

Right.

DERP!

 

[miketx]

matthew we all know that the plants all want more CO2. The polls show it. So then, matt...

 

[SSDD]

Of course it would cool off. And as your own source said, "This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules"
Measuring radiation. Weird.

Measuring the change of an internal thermopile...not measuring radiation...again, fooling yourself with instrumentation...and are you saying that you can't wrap your mind around one parcel of air being warmer than another?

And yet, every source you post to educate me, ends up disagreeing with your claims and agreeing with mine.

Only in your twisted little mind toddster...hell, look at the title of the paper...
Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime ..he says observations ON backradiation, not observations of back radiation...you can't read, you can't comprehend, and you have no desire to...so now it's back to ignore with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it would cool off. And as your own source said, "This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules"
Measuring radiation. Weird.

Measuring the change of an internal thermopile...not measuring radiation...again, fooling yourself with instrumentation...and are you saying that you can't wrap your mind around one parcel of air being warmer than another?

And yet, every source you post to educate me, ends up disagreeing with your claims and agreeing with mine.

Only in your twisted little mind toddster...now it's back to ignore with you.

Measuring the change of an internal thermopile...not measuring radiation

Your source said "radiometers record thermal radiation"

No luck finding proof of your claim at equilibrium?

Physics for Scientists and Engineers

I can find plenty that say net.

 

[SSDD]

Your source said "radiometers record thermal radiation"

They give a number based on changes in an internal thermopile...nothing more..nothing less

No luck finding proof of your claim at equilibrium?

Only ever observation and measurement ever made...care to find an actual measurement of two way energy flow and not one that only shows how easily you are duped by instrumentation?

I can find plenty that say net.

And not a single actual measurement of two way energy flow to back them up....exactly what do you think that is worth when compared to every observation and measurement ever made?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your source said "radiometers record thermal radiation"

They give a number based on changes in an internal thermopile...nothing more..nothing less

No luck finding proof of your claim at equilibrium?

Only ever observation and measurement ever made...care to find an actual measurement of two way energy flow and not one that only shows how easily you are duped by instrumentation?

I can find plenty that say net.

And not a single actual measurement of two way energy flow to back them up....exactly what do you think that is worth when compared to every observation and measurement ever made?

All my sources that say net are wrong......yet you have no sources that say radiation ceases at equilibrium?

To illustrate this relationship between temperature and thermal radiation, the blackbody radiation spectrum for several reference objects is shown in figure 2. As expected, the hotter objects have smaller peak wavelengths.

To find the total amount of energy being radiated by an object, we merely need to find the area under the curve, which is equivalent to the integral of equation 1 over all wavelengths. This integration results in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states[6] that for an object of temperature T, the radiated power P will be
Prad = σAsT4. (4)

Here is the emissivity of the object, As is the surface area, and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The emissivity constant depends entirely on the material of the object and is capped at 1 for an ideal blackbody. For practical purposes, the net power being radiated is more useful than the absolute radiated power. The net power of an object at temperature T in an environment of temperature T0 is

Pnet = Prad −Pabsorb (5)

This expands to[7]

Pnet = σAsT4 −σAsT4 0 . (6)

http://physics.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Wellons_Web_Article.pdf

 

[SSDD]

All my sources that say net are wrong...

Now you got it...let me know when you get a measurement of two way energy flow....of course you are more likely to get actual evidence of unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies, but you keep on believing...some day that great pumpkin may show up....don't hold your breath though.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All my sources that say net are wrong...

Now you got it...let me know when you get a measurement of two way energy flow....of course you are more likely to get actual evidence of unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies, but you keep on believing...some day that great pumpkin may show up....don't hold your breath though.

Yes, I get that I have many sources that say net energy flow.
You have no sources that say one way energy flow.

I have many sources that say objects emit and absorb, at the same time, you have none that back your misinterpretation.

I have many sources that say objects absorb and emit at equilibrium, you have none that back your misinterpretation.

I get it, we all get it. But you cling to your one way, future predicting photons, the rest of us will continue to laugh at your ignorance.

Could you post another source? I love it when I can show they conflict with your claims. LOL!

Physics

Net power.....so weird.

 

[SSDD]

All my sources that say net are wrong...

Now you got it...let me know when you get a measurement of two way energy flow....of course you are more likely to get actual evidence of unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies, but you keep on believing...some day that great pumpkin may show up....don't hold your breath though.

Yes, I get that I have many sources that say net energy flow.
You have no sources that say one way energy flow.

I have many sources that say objects emit and absorb, at the same time, you have none that back your misinterpretation.

I have many sources that say objects absorb and emit at equilibrium, you have none that back your misinterpretation.

I get it, we all get it. But you cling to your one way, future predicting photons, the rest of us will continue to laugh at your ignorance.

Could you post another source? I love it when I can show they conflict with your claims. LOL!

View attachment 142339

Physics

Net power.....so weird.

What do you know...more unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as evidence to support your position. How completely unsurprising and predictable is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All my sources that say net are wrong...

Now you got it...let me know when you get a measurement of two way energy flow....of course you are more likely to get actual evidence of unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies, but you keep on believing...some day that great pumpkin may show up....don't hold your breath though.

Yes, I get that I have many sources that say net energy flow.
You have no sources that say one way energy flow.

I have many sources that say objects emit and absorb, at the same time, you have none that back your misinterpretation.

I have many sources that say objects absorb and emit at equilibrium, you have none that back your misinterpretation.

I get it, we all get it. But you cling to your one way, future predicting photons, the rest of us will continue to laugh at your ignorance.

Could you post another source? I love it when I can show they conflict with your claims. LOL!

View attachment 142339

Physics

Net power.....so weird.

What do you know...more unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as evidence to support your position. How completely unsurprising and predictable is that?

You're the only one who thinks matter above 0K ceases emitting at equilibrium.
It must be lonely.

 

[SSDD]

You're the only one who thinks matter above 0K ceases emitting at equilibrium.
It must be lonely.

All models all the time...I would rather be lonely than be a dupe....Let me know when you get an actual measurement of two way energy flow...a measurement that isn't just you being fooled by instrumentation that is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the only one who thinks matter above 0K ceases emitting at equilibrium.
It must be lonely.

All models all the time...I would rather be lonely than be a dupe....Let me know when you get an actual measurement of two way energy flow...a measurement that isn't just you being fooled by instrumentation that is.

You manage to be a lonely dupe. Congrats!

....Let me know when you get an actual measurement of two way energy flow..

Let me know when you find anyone who claims energy only flows one way.
Anyone.
I can keep posting sources who say net energy......don't see any that agree with you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

matthew we all know that the plants all want more CO2. The polls show it. So then, matt...

Lol, we're talking about possibly a billion people being fucked out of their properties and possibly lives and all you can do is that? This would certainly raise the sea level 3-5 matters or more across the globe at a minimum.

Of course, you're blood thirsty and compassionless.

 

[miketx]

matthew we all know that the plants all want more CO2. The polls show it. So then, matt...

Lol, we're talking about possibly a billion people being fucked out of their properties and possibly lives and all you can do is that? This would certainly raise the sea level 3-5 matters or more across the globe at a minimum.

Of course, you're blood thirsty and compassionless.

No matty, YOU are blabbering about it and no one wants to hear your insane retard blabbering about any thing, let alone this idiotic topic that is a pure fantasy. Now go play with barbie.

 

[SSDD]

matthew we all know that the plants all want more CO2. The polls show it. So then, matt...

Lol, we're talking about possibly a billion people being fucked out of their properties and possibly lives and all you can do is that? This would certainly raise the sea level 3-5 matters or more across the globe at a minimum.

Of course, you're blood thirsty and compassionless.

Do you have the first piece of actual evidence that this is happening? Or are you just waving your hands like a hysterical woman, running around in circles crying that the sky is falling?