Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[xband]

Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth.

algore is an inconvenient idiot....who has made a killing on the AGW scam because believers are idiots as well...he is playing on the fact that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

You can fool the people most of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Wuwei]

Duck and cover...dodge and weave...double talk till you puke...The SB law is about emission... And there is no net energy exchange outside of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Unless of course you care to show me an example of two way energy exchange...that would be an observation and measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy emitting from a radiator and returning to the radiator from its surroundings..made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Your overuse of "unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models” is a non sequitur because radiation physics is mathematically derived from observable, measurable, testable, experiments.

Look up the derivation of Stefan Boltzman at Law at
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

You will find that nowhere do they consider what the background temperature is. So the fourth power temperature law doesn't change for any change in background temperature.

You can spin till you have enough yarn to knit a rug big enough to cover the floor of the super dome...the fact is that attempting to apply the SB law to the movement of energy from the surface to space is just piss poor shitty science...and belief that it is ok is just gross stupidity.

The SB law is always used for the movement of thermal energy to anywhere else.
BTW if you wanted to cover the super dome with a rug, it would be best to weave it rather than knit it.

 

[Wuwei]

yes I do, which is why I pointed out that a black body has no heat capacity when wuwei claimed that because the earth has significant heat capacity, it is nearly a perfect black body...you want to try and defend that kind of ignorance...go right ahead.

Where did I claim that? You are confused.
I claimed that the "...emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths..."

 

[SSDD]

Your overuse of "unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models” is a non sequitur because radiation physics is mathematically derived from observable, measurable, testable, experiments.

Really? then show me an observed, measured example of two way energy flow.

You will find that nowhere do they consider what the background temperature is. So the fourth power temperature law doesn't change for any change in background temperature.

Just keep talking...tell us all how much you don't know...What do you think this equation means if it doesn't consider the background temperature?

The SB law is always used for the movement of thermal energy to anywhere else.
BTW if you wanted to cover the super dome with a rug, it would be best to weave it rather than knit it.

No...the SB law covers black body and gray body radiators with a single radiating surface...nothing else.

 

[SSDD]

Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth.

algore is an inconvenient idiot....who has made a killing on the AGW scam because believers are idiots as well...he is playing on the fact that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

You can fool the people most of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, Abraham Lincoln.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. A. Lincoln.

 

[SSDD]

yes I do, which is why I pointed out that a black body has no heat capacity when wuwei claimed that because the earth has significant heat capacity, it is nearly a perfect black body...you want to try and defend that kind of ignorance...go right ahead.

Where did I claim that? You are confused.
I claimed that the "...emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths..."

The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.

The fact that it is "very" capable of storing heat from the sun means that it has a fairly large heat capacity...a black body has no heat capacity...a radiator that is almost a black body would have very little heat capacity... and we aren't talking about visible light anyway...the earth has a fairly large heat capacity in the thermal range which means that it isn't even a very good gray body...much less nearly a blackbody.

 

[Wuwei]

Really? then show me an observed, measured example of two way energy flow.

I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.

Just keep talking...tell us all how much you don't know...What do you think this equation means if it doesn't consider the background temperature?

That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.

 

[Wuwei]

The fact that it is "very" capable of storing heat from the sun means that it has a fairly large heat capacity.

True.

...a black body has no heat capacity...

False: A metal object with a perfect blackbody painted surface has a large heat capacity and can be easily heated with radiation.

...a radiator that is almost a black body would have very little heat capacity...

False for the same reason.

.. and we aren't talking about visible light anyway..

Visible light is the primary way that the earth heats up. You brought it up in your first paragraph above.

.the earth has a fairly large heat capacity in the thermal range which means that it isn't even a very good gray body....

Do you know what heat capacity is?
Heat capacity is a measurable physical quantity equal to the ratio of the heat added to (or removed from) an object to the resulting temperature.

You have to explain why you think heat capacity has anything to do emissivity (gray body).

 

[SSDD]

I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.

No...you only demonstrated how much you don't know...and perhaps one of the prime reasons you have been duped so terribly.

That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.

It is the only one that matters...the other describes an idealized, probably non existent perfect black body alone in a vacuum with no other matter to emit to...the one I provided is for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings with other matter.

 

[SSDD]

False: A metal object with a perfect blackbody painted surface has a large heat capacity and can be easily heated with radiation.

Sorry guy...an ideal black body has no heat capacity.

Visible light is the primary way that the earth heats up. You brought it up in your first paragraph above.

you believe short wave from the sun is visible? Keep talking....keep digging.

Do you know what heat capacity is?

Yep..and more importantly, I know how it applies to a black body.

 

[Wuwei]

I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.

No...you only demonstrated how much you don't know...and perhaps one of the prime reasons you have been duped so terribly.

That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.

It is the only one that matters...the other describes an idealized, probably non existent perfect black body alone in a vacuum with no other matter to emit to...the one I provided is for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings with other matter.

False: A metal object with a perfect blackbody painted surface has a large heat capacity and can be easily heated with radiation.

Sorry guy...an ideal black body has no heat capacity.

Visible light is the primary way that the earth heats up. You brought it up in your first paragraph above.

you believe short wave from the sun is visible? Keep talking....keep digging.

Do you know what heat capacity is?

Yep..and more importantly, I know how it applies to a black body.

Everything you said in those two posts is false. Your only argument is equivalent to "it's true because I said so." All science books, journals and scientists for the last 100 years disagree with you completely. I have given you a number of references to the actual science. So sad that such a lack of education exists by people who choose to live in the dark.

 

[SSDD]

Alas, you are wrong and unfortunately can't be convinced otherwise...to acknowledge that the SB equation is wrongly applied to the atmosphere in the greenhouse hypothesis would question your faith...to bad you don't recognize that faith and science are two different things.

 

[Wuwei]

Alas, you are wrong and unfortunately can't be convinced otherwise...to acknowledge that the SB equation is wrongly applied to the atmosphere in the greenhouse hypothesis would question your faith...to bad you don't recognize that faith and science are two different things.

To bad you don't recognize nor understand science.

 

[SSDD]

Alas, you are wrong and unfortunately can't be convinced otherwise...to acknowledge that the SB equation is wrongly applied to the atmosphere in the greenhouse hypothesis would question your faith...to bad you don't recognize that faith and science are two different things.

To bad you don't recognize nor understand science.

I am laughing in your face....

 

[Wuwei]

I am laughing in your face....

I don't think so. I would guess you are looking at your computer screen and most likely not laughing at all.

 

[IanC]

Definitions need to be made here.

Emmisivity describes what happens to radiation when it hits a substance. It can either be (a)bsorbed, (r)eflected, or(t)ransmitted.

A perfect blackbody absorbs it all. a=1, r=0, t=0

A perfect white body reflects it all. a=0, r=1, t=0

A perfect gray body does all three but always in the same ratio. a=n, r=n, t=n

There should be a fourth type. A perfect clear body transmits it all. a=0, r=0, t=1

There are no perfect bodies. The a, r and t are different for different wavelengths. Measured emmisivity is an estimate over a given range made up by adding the results for the individual wavelengths that make up the range.

Let's use CO2 for an example. If the range is the full spectrum of terrestrial IR then it is a poor blackbody because it only absorbs at three wavelengths out of many. But if we restrict the range to only 15 micron IR then it is close to a perfect Blackbody. At 10 microns it is a near perfect clear body because all the radiation is simply transmitted.

 

[SSDD]

Really? then show me an observed, measured example of two way energy flow.

I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.

Just keep talking...tell us all how much you don't know...What do you think this equation means if it doesn't consider the background temperature?

That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.

The fundamental form of the SB equation describes a perfect black body emitting in the complete absence of other matter you idiot. Tell me, where might that happen?

 

[Wuwei]

The fundamental form of the SB equation describes a perfect black body emitting in the complete absence of other matter you idiot. Tell me, where might that happen?

You didn't look at the article I posted. The fourth power equation is derived with absolutely no assumption about background objects or temperature. Look at the article. It is the essence of what Boltzmann himself derived.

Also look up a derivation of this formula

You will see that they assume a net two-way flow. Net flow has been known by science for a hundred years.

 

[IanC]

I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.

No...you only demonstrated how much you don't know...and perhaps one of the prime reasons you have been duped so terribly.

That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.

It is the only one that matters...the other describes an idealized, probably non existent perfect black body alone in a vacuum with no other matter to emit to...the one I provided is for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings with other matter.

I have to go with w on this one. Or rather, all the scientists and mathematicians that derived the relationships used to provide the proof.

The fundamental law is j = sigma T^4

This describes the radiation produced by an object at a specified temperature. Regardless of its surroundings. One object, one temperature, one instant of time. It is the simplest and purest form of the S-B equations.

When you add other objects, emmisivity, or the passage of time the complexity explodes.

Every object radiates according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. It is the temperature that changes. A radiating object cools by emitting energy. j = sigma T^4 is only valid for one instant of time, the next instant will have a lower temperature because of the energy loss of the previous instant.

If another object is nearby, the first object will be absorbing the radiation produced by the second object, and vice versa. Because temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output, the cooling (or warming) of the first object will be affected by the radiation received by the second object.

There is no 'cancelling out' of radiation. Both objects radiate fully at all times according to their temperatures. The temperature of either object will change, depending on the net radiation exchanged.

While you can calculate the individual energy flows coming off each object, it is only the net flow that causes change in the temperatures of the two objects.

ie. If an object at a temperature that radiates 300w is next to an object that radiates 200w, you cannot say that the cooler object is warming the hot one by 200w. At that instant of time, the cool object is receiving a net flow of 100w and the hot object is losing a net flow of 100w. At the next instant of time the hot object will be slightly cooler and the cool object slightly warmer. This exchange of energy will continue until they are both the same temperature, at which time they will STILL be radiating according to their temperatures but because there is no longer a net flow, the temperatures remain the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.

No...you only demonstrated how much you don't know...and perhaps one of the prime reasons you have been duped so terribly.

That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.

It is the only one that matters...the other describes an idealized, probably non existent perfect black body alone in a vacuum with no other matter to emit to...the one I provided is for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings with other matter.

I have to go with w on this one. Or rather, all the scientists and mathematicians that derived the relationships used to provide the proof.

The fundamental law is j = sigma T^4

This describes the radiation produced by an object at a specified temperature. Regardless of its surroundings. One object, one temperature, one instant of time. It is the simplest and purest form of the S-B equations.

When you add other objects, emmisivity, or the passage of time the complexity explodes.

Every object radiates according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. It is the temperature that changes. A radiating object cools by emitting energy. j = sigma T^4 is only valid for one instant of time, the next instant will have a lower temperature because of the energy loss of the previous instant.

If another object is nearby, the first object will be absorbing the radiation produced by the second object, and vice versa. Because temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output, the cooling (or warming) of the first object will be affected by the radiation received by the second object.

There is no 'cancelling out' of radiation. Both objects radiate fully at all times according to their temperatures. The temperature of either object will change, depending on the net radiation exchanged.

While you can calculate the individual energy flows coming off each object, it is only the net flow that causes change in the temperatures of the two objects.

ie. If an object at a temperature that radiates 300w is next to an object that radiates 200w, you cannot say that the cooler object is warming the hot one by 200w. At that instant of time, the cool object is receiving a net flow of 100w and the hot object is losing a net flow of 100w. At the next instant of time the hot object will be slightly cooler and the cool object slightly warmer. This exchange of energy will continue until they are both the same temperature, at which time they will STILL be radiating according to their temperatures but because there is no longer a net flow, the temperatures remain the same.

It's amazing,....follows the 2nd Law, follows SB, doesn't violate causality, doesn't need to predict the future.....
not an epicycle in sight.