Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?




[MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION] Is your screen too cold? Can't see your error?
Do you need a braille screen? Translator?

You still talking? Let me know when you have an observed, measured example of energy transferring from a cold object to a warm object at ambient temperature...till then, you are doing nothing but professing your faith. Fine if you want to believe...Without some actual evidence, however, I don't.

The formula clearly says a body emits energy as a function of its thermodynamic temperature.

Can you understand what that means?

It doesn't say it emits unless something warmer is nearby.

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 guy in the 1963 seems to have measured energy transferring from cold surroundings (296 K) to a warmer human (307 K). How'd he do that? It's easy, he used the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the one that you keep ignoring.

 

[KissMy]

The problem is that you can't see through to the bottom line. There is a 6 cent difference between the federal tax on gasoline and diesel to begin with, then you add on the individual state road tax.

Ethanol may be a bit cheaper at the pump, but the cost of the subsidies, and the damage it causes to engines not designed to burn it (most) makes ethanol much more expensive than gasoline.

Ethanol is an excellent solvent...it dissolves plastic, rubber and even aluminum.

Ethanol is a drying agent...it causes rubber seals and hoses to become brittle and crack.

Ethanol is an excellent cleanser and while one might "think" that is a good thing, it cleans years of deposits in older engines and washes that gunk which was not a problem right through the engine, which is a problem.

Ethanol will absorb, and combine with water...result...bad outcome for engines not specifically designed for it.

Ethanol ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline...result, higher combustion chamber temperatures resulting in damage to pistons.

Look at the fine print of your auto manufacturer warranty..if you are burning ethanol and your engine is damaged by it, the manufacturer is not going to cover the damage.

And since there is less energy in a gallon of ethanol "enriched" gas than standard gasoline, we get fewer miles per gallon..also increasing the cost.

Cost to repair the sort of damage ethanol can range from 2000 to 8000 per vehicle according to consumer reports...multiply that times the number of engines running in the US that aren't specifically designed to run on ethanol.

And like most green initiatives, it harms the poor the most since they can least afford a fuel that causes their gas mileage to drop and causes damage to their engines...and how are they going to afford a new vehicle when ethanol kills their clunker..

And ethanol subsidies have the added bonus of driving the monarch butterfly into extinction.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about ethanol being cheaper in the long run than you are...in typical liberal fashion..you simply can't follow your idea out to its logical end. You get worked up over the surface gloss and fail to see the rot underneath.

The data proves KissMy is correct. You failed your point & reverted to oil company strawman talking points attacks on ethanol.

Sorry, but kiss my was wrong...the numbers themselves prove him wrong....the additional costs of ethanol make him, and you, very wrong. And the damage caused by ethanol is not a straw man..the damage is real and being documented every day. Nice of you to identify yourself as a very shallow thinker though....always helps to know what sort of person you are talking to.

The numbers prove you wrong, but you can't admit the truth. The tax difference is in no way the reason for the huge drop in gasoline price. If you knew anything about supply & demand you would understand that. Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.

 

[Crick]

Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.

Bingo.

 

[SSDD]

Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.

Bingo.

Take his advice to heart....and help him find a math tutor.

 

[Crick]

Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.

Bingo.

Take his advice to heart....and help him find a math tutor.

The comment about honesty was addressed to you. I second it. Twixt the lot of us, the one most needful of a tutor would be you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.

Bingo.

Take his advice to heart....and help him find a math tutor.

Maybe your physics tutor has a friend?

 

[Kosh]

Bingo.

Take his advice to heart....and help him find a math tutor.

The comment about honesty was addressed to you. I second it. Twixt the lot of us, the one most needful of a tutor would be you.

OH the irony of those comments from the AGW cult and liar.

 

[Crick]

Oh, the irony of that statement coming from you.

 

[Political Junky]

Apparently some scientists are paid more than that to deny global warming.

 

[Crick]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

 

[RKMBrown]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

Yeah cause selling people gas and oil to power their homes and vehicles is such and evil act.

 

[Kosh]

Apparently some scientists are paid more than that to deny global warming.

Incorrect! Many are paid more via tax payer money to try and prove that humans are the cause as many governments want to justify their high taxation or use it to tax other nations to fund their over bloated social programs.

Then again why give up your Bentley when you can just allow the money to roll in.

 

[Kosh]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

More proof that the AGW cult is not connected to reality and relies on their religious scriptures to formulate their thoughts.

 

[Crick]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

Yeah cause selling people gas and oil to power their homes and vehicles is such and evil act.

Dipshit. They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution. They fund every denier they can find: Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Tim Ball, the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, ALEC, Beacon Hill, the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research. The fossil fuel industry has far more reason to be dishonest (billions of them) than do the world's climate scientists; which seems to be the only alternative.

 

[jc456]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

Yeah cause selling people gas and oil to power their homes and vehicles is such and evil act.

Dipshit. They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution. They fund every denier they can find: Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Tim Ball, the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, ALEC, Beacon Hill, the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research. The fossil fuel industry has far more reason to be dishonest (billions of them) than do the world's climate scientists; which seems to be the only alternative.

And that experiment of 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature rise, you have it now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

Yeah cause selling people gas and oil to power their homes and vehicles is such and evil act.

Dipshit. They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution. They fund every denier they can find: Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Tim Ball, the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, ALEC, Beacon Hill, the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research. The fossil fuel industry has far more reason to be dishonest (billions of them) than do the world's climate scientists; which seems to be the only alternative.

They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution.

I know. Eliminating the MWP. Mike's Nature trick. Hiding the decline.

Just awful.

 

[RKMBrown]

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.

Yeah cause selling people gas and oil to power their homes and vehicles is such and evil act.

Dipshit. They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution. They fund every denier they can find: Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Tim Ball, the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, ALEC, Beacon Hill, the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research. The fossil fuel industry has far more reason to be dishonest (billions of them) than do the world's climate scientists; which seems to be the only alternative.

Yeah cause driving in your car to work and cooking your dinner is the same as smoking cancer sticks.

 

[Crick]

Do you even read the posts you're responding to? Your comments are completely disconnected from the material to which - nominally - you're responding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?

No...just the second law. If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye. You aren't receiving any energy, visible or otherwise from the object that is cooler than your eye.

Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed something hot?

If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?

the atmosphere warmed by the Sun?

Most incoming solar radiation is in the short wave bands is it not? Isn't the atmosphere mostly transparent to short wave radiation? Think it is time for you to stop yet?

If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye.

I've seen fireflies, cooler than 98 F, with my eye.
Do you feel fireflies are warm-blooded?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would light from a source cooler than the metal also be allowed to reflect toward the hotter metal?

Energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

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.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

I thought we were talking about reflection?

Of course sunlight would reflect from the ice to the metal...the sun being warmer than the metal...No energy from the ice is being absorbed by the metal. If twisting your opponents argument, and misrepresenting what he is saying is the only way you see to continue...then you have lost already.

Of course sunlight would reflect from the ice to the metal...the sun being warmer than the metal...

Of course that means that light from an LED would not reflect from the ice to the metal....if the metal was 2000 K.
Correct?