Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[SSDD]

Those studies and the many before it were good enough to convince better than 97% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid. The you - someone with no valid scientific education and a plethora of blatantly incorrect interpretations of fundamental physical laws - should choose to reject all of that concerns me not a whit. What does concern me is that others visiting this site can be taken in by your faulty contentions.

And yet there isn't a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...that being the case, exactly what convinced them? It wasn't the evidence...perhaps it was the vast trough of grant money associated with maintaining the narrative.

 

[SSDD]

I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.

We are waiting.

..you, on the other hand can't even state what a simple equation says..

Why do you keep lying about that. I stated exactly that well over half a dozen times.

No, alas you didn't..you have dodged over and over..

Tell me what does this equation say? What does it describe? x - y = z

Here is what all scientists understand the SB equation to be since 1879. It is the standard derivation in textbooks for an object at temperature T₁ and a surround at temperature T₂.

Rₑ = esT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission of an object.
Rₐ = esT₂⁴, . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption of an object.

The net rate is the difference between radiation and absorption.
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = esT₁⁴ - esT₂⁴ = es(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

If the net is positive heat is flowing away from the object.
If the net is negative heat is flowing toward the object.

You were told that over a dozen times. Tell me what you think is the dodge.

You said, I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.
Lets hear it.

Edit: Oops. The Greek symbols sigma and epsilon in the formulas were erased by the text editor. I wrote them back as e and s.

So you can't even say what x - y = z is saying in plain language?

And the bullshit above certainly is not what this equation says...

Let me know when you learn to read a simple equation and say what it says in plain english. Then I will be happy to tell you about Venus.

 

[jc456]

If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.

Why do you post up this sort of thing and claim it disagrees with me when it is saying the same thing as me?

Why do you post up this sort of thing and claim it supports your position when it says the opposite of your claims?

you believe in back radiation. that was simple.

 

[Wuwei]

x - y = z

OK. I will play your juvenile game it means variable x minus variable y equals z.
Tell me why you think the standard derivation in textbooks of the SB equation is bullshit.

Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "II. Uber die Bestimmung ......."
This is the translation of the first two sentences

The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment.​

At the bottom of page 411, he writes,

We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus

H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴​

in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. [Later called emissivity.]
The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by

w₁ = 3A/r₁cs (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​

The Dartmouth excerpt even uses the same notation of temperatures T₁⁴ and T₂⁴. Stefan refers to heat with an H, for the German Hitze.
None of the hundreds of thousands of scientists since then have disagreed with Stefan. In essence you are calling the understanding of Stefan and thousands and thousands of scientists since then bullshit.

Au contraire, what you are saying is total bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me...what do you think H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴ means?

 

[Crick]

They describe the emission of the two bodies. Where does it say that whichever is colder is simply zero?

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me...what do you think H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴ means?

If you are referring to Stefan's paper these are quotes from him,

H₁ is the "heat radiated by the body" in his experiment and
H₂ is the "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."​

I quoted that in my prior post. Why do you ask again? Of course you already think Stefan's seminal experiment is fairy dust.

.

 

[polarbear]

Tell me...what do you think H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴ means?

If you are referring to Stefan's paper these are quotes from him,

H₁ is the "heat radiated by the body" in his experiment and
H₂ is the "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."​

I quoted that in my prior post. Why do you ask again? Of course you already think Stefan's seminal experiment is fairy dust.

.

What makes you think you could get away with the blatant lies you posted here?
SSDD may not be able to read German but I do!
Nowhere in this paper does Stefan say anything about heat being transferred from the colder to the warmer object!!!! As in heat flowing from H(0) to H(100). H(100) was a mercury thermometer at 100 deg C in a Copper sphere H(0) at 0 deg C and he was determining the rate of cooling for H(100)-H(0) while reducing the air pressure inside the sphere to null out the heat conduction component for air.
Nowhere does he do a H(0) - H(100) reverse fuck like you keep advocating and nowhere in this paper does he mention heat absorption.....which you say is what you get if you subtract the hotter from the colder.

 

[Wuwei]

What makes you think you could get away with the blatant lies you posted here?
SSDD may not be able to read German but I do!
Nowhere in this paper does Stefan say anything about heat being transferred from the colder to the warmer object!!!

Chill out. Stefan recognized two way flow even though he didn't cool the object wrt the surround.
Why do you say it's a blatant lie? Stefan said this:

H₁ is the "heat radiated by the body" in his experiment and
H₂ is the "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."​

His statement clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways between hot and cold bodies. EM radiation was understood at that time, but not in terms of heat flow. Understanding black body radiation would come later.

Do you agree with SSDD that radiation can only move one way from a hot object to a colder object and that photons can't move from a cold object to a warm object?

 

[polarbear]

What makes you think you could get away with the blatant lies you posted here?
SSDD may not be able to read German but I do!
Nowhere in this paper does Stefan say anything about heat being transferred from the colder to the warmer object!!!

Chill out. Stefan recognized two way flow even though he didn't cool the object wrt the surround.
Why do you say it's a blatant lie? Stefan said this:

H₁ is the "heat radiated by the body" in his experiment and
H₂ is the "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."​

His statement clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways between hot and cold bodies. EM radiation was understood at that time, but not in terms of heat flow. Understanding black body radiation would come later.

Do you agree with SSDD that radiation can only move one way from a hot object to a colder object and that photons can't move from a cold object to a warm object?

What a pathological liar you are. Show me the original text in German where he says what you claim.
In every equation the colder H gets subtracted from the warmer H. The colder H being the surrounding shell and the hotter H being the Mercury thermometer in the center. Not one instance where its the other way around as your lies would have it. Stefan states that the Heat H2 which is transmitted from the (colder) shell at the temperature u2 to the thermometer determines the loss of heat by radiation from the thermometer for the time dt as: 4πr^2 (H1-H2) dt
with r being the radius of the thermometer bulb. That`s how he determined the rate of cooling for H1.
Nowhere does Stefan do a H2 - H1 subtraction with H1 being > H2 as you kept insisting...and come up with a negative value for H that can not be converted to a temperature because it implies a 4th root of a negative number which only dope idiots like you would do and Stefan was no dope head.

 

[Wuwei]

What a pathological liar you are.

Your'e not chilling out. You are pathologically confused.

Show me the original text in German where he says what you claim. In every equation the colder H gets subtracted from the warmer H. The colder H being the surrounding shell and the hotter H being the Mercury thermometer in the center.

I never said Stefan did an experiment where the surrounding shell is hotter than the object. Show me where you think I said that. But thanks for reading Stefan's paper. It was quite a breakthrough for that time.

Nowhere does Stefan do a H2 - H1 subtraction with H1 being > H2 as you kept insisting.

I never insisted that. I agree and understood from the beginning that he didn't try to reverse temperatures. You have missed my point to SSDD again.

.

 

[polarbear]

What a pathological liar you are.

Your'e not chilling out. You are pathologically confused.

Show me the original text in German where he says what you claim. In every equation the colder H gets subtracted from the warmer H. The colder H being the surrounding shell and the hotter H being the Mercury thermometer in the center.

I never said Stefan did an experiment where the surrounding shell is hotter than the object. Show me where you think I said that. But thanks for reading Stefan's paper. It was quite a breakthrough for that time.

Nowhere does Stefan do a H2 - H1 subtraction with H1 being > H2 as you kept insisting.

I never insisted that. I agree and understood from the beginning that he didn't try to reverse temperatures. You have missed my point to SSDD again.

.

Hahaha now the dippy hippie denies that he was trying to use the German text to corroborate his bullshit from post # 280 "If the net is negative heat is flowing toward the object."
You know fucking well that means a subtraction of a higher temperature from a lower one! Or need I rub your face in some more of your "negative energy " hallucinations ? It`s not as if you were off the hook just because I don`t want to bother. Everybody here, not just me knows what you said.
So how is it that you never said Stefan experimented with a shell hotter than the object in it clears you from being a liar while claiming Stefan said something about the amount of heat the object absorbed from the shell in the format you kept using which resulted in a negative result.
Typical liar tactics !!!! I never said that you said that. You pulled it out of your asshole as usual to deflect.

 

[polarbear]

"Wuwei" buried the bullshit meter needle when he posted this:
"Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf"
And pretended to know what Stefan wrote in this original German paper even though he does not speak German.
The idea was to masquerade as an expert who studied Stefan, Boltzman, Einstein, Planck ect etc publications in German while in reality the only thing he does know is what the warmist blogs say is stated in these texts.
That`s about as delusional as the hamburger flipper who claims it`s his cover while he is working for the CIA.

 

[Wuwei]

Hahaha now the dippy hippie denies that he was trying to use the German text to corroborate his bullshit from post # 280 "If the net is negative heat is flowing toward the object."

There are two related but different issues.
1. SSDD doesn't understand the SB equation.
2. SSDD doesn't understand the 2nd law.

The first issue was in Post #280.
The second issue was historically addressed by Stefan's interpretation - radiation exchange, "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."

I can understand why you are confusing the two, because Stefan's statement was addressing both issues. But on top of that you don't believe the standard textbook derivation of the SB equation either. You, Billy, JC, et al, are all sycophants of SSDD. Congratulations on your unity and harmony.

"Wuwei" buried the bullshit meter needle when he posted this:
"Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf"
And pretended to know what Stefan wrote in this original German paper even though he does not speak German.
The idea was to masquerade as an expert who studied Stefan, Boltzman, Einstein, Planck ect etc publications in German while in reality the only thing he does know is what the warmist blogs say is stated in these texts.
That`s about as delusional as the hamburger flipper who claims it`s his cover while he is working for the CIA.

Chill out.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me...what do you think H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴ means?

If you are referring to Stefan's paper these are quotes from him,

H₁ is the "heat radiated by the body" in his experiment and
H₂ is the "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."​

I quoted that in my prior post. Why do you ask again? Of course you already think Stefan's seminal experiment is fairy dust.

.

Is there anything you won't reinterpret in an attempt to support your beliefs...he was merely showing you how to derive absolute temperature..he says nothing about energy exchange...

 

[SSDD]

His statement clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways between hot and cold bodies. EM radiation was understood at that time, but not in terms of heat flow. Understanding black body radiation would come later.

Maybe in your nutty brain he clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways...but then, you aren't reading what he actually says..you are reading what you wish he says...all he was doing was telling you how to derive absolute temperature..

 

[SSDD]

1. SSDD doesn't understand the SB equation.
2. SSDD doesn't understand the 2nd law.['quote]

Of course I do...and I don't need to reinterpret either of them as I accept them as written...you on the other hand can't accept what they say and therefore need to reinterpret them to say what you wish they said.

 

[Wuwei]

Is there anything you won't reinterpret in an attempt to support your beliefs...he was merely showing you how to derive absolute temperature..he says nothing about energy exchange...

Nope. Review the following.
Stefan: "heat radiated by the body" "warmth simultaneously absorbed ..."

Maybe in your nutty brain he clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways...but then, you aren't reading what he actually says..you are reading what you wish he says...all he was doing was telling you how to derive absolute temperature..

Nope. He actually said simultaneous radiation and absorption.

1. SSDD doesn't understand the SB equation.
2. SSDD doesn't understand the 2nd law.['quote]

Of course I do...and I don't need to reinterpret either of them as I accept them as written...you on the other hand can't accept what they say and therefore need to reinterpret them to say what you wish they said.

Nope, your interpretation disagrees with all scientists and textbooks.

.

 

[SSDD]

[
Nope, your interpretation disagrees with all scientists and textbooks.

.

The rest of your post is your typical bullshit...but which part of this statement do you think I am interpreting?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any part of that statement that needs interpreting....I agree with it 100%. You on the other hand only accept it if it doesn't have to actually mean what it says. You are laughable...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Nope, your interpretation disagrees with all scientists and textbooks.

.

The rest of your post is your typical bullshit...but which part of this statement do you think I am interpreting?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any part of that statement that needs interpreting....I agree with it 100%. You on the other hand only accept it if it doesn't have to actually mean what it says. You are laughable...

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

A body at -20C won't emit toward the ground at 15C.
But if I do some work and warm the body up to -19C, it will emit toward the ground at 15C?