Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is an emitter of positive P can do that. Maybe all these strawman scientists who you say all say so put it in these textbooks for strawman brained people who keep publishing HYPERPHYSICS for uber "scientists" like you to quote.You built a strawman. "Negative emission" is a phrase you made up as far as the SB equation is concerned. No source we gave you says negative emission is another name for absorption.Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission"
Wow that author calles it "Hyperphysics" and probably dresses up like Spock to look the part of a "hyper scientist."
I am still waiting for you to show me a statement from Planck or Einstein about something radiating negative P
It should be obvious that the object with temperature Tc becomes the source. It radiates more than it receives from the object at temperature T.Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is an emitter of positive P can do that.
It does not "bother" me it`s just plain stupid to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. It can not so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction.It should be obvious that the object with temperature Tc becomes the source. It radiates more than it receives from the object at temperature T.Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is an emitter of positive P can do that.
If it bothers you that Tc > T just interchange the two terms Tc and T:
-P = εσ(T⁴–Tc⁴) becomes P = εσ(Tc⁴–T⁴)
Now both sides of the equation are positive with the source and background exchanging places.
It does not "bother" me it`s just plain stupid to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. It can not so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction. But it all makes sense if you are a liberal. They don`t need to work for a living they can just go out enjoy live and do some "negative spending".
If P can be negative then why would you even need 2 T`s?
You can just solve for T from say -100 Watts/m^2 using the Boltzman equation and publish the result here. I`ll even go ahead and do that for you:
[start]
input"Watts per m^2 heat radiation ";P
B=5.670373 * 10^(-8)
t=P/B
k=(log(t))/4
k=exp(k)
print"Heat radiation source= ";k
[goto start]
Strange thing happens. My program halts and displays "Run Time Error invalid operation" if I input a negative number for P. Hahaha Why do you suppose that is?
And there it is again, the usual spiel. Copy and paste the "anger spewing" part I am supposed to be guilty of and file a complaint with Cathy Areu or whoever is your local liberal sherpa.It does not "bother" me it`s just plain stupid to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. It can not so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction. But it all makes sense if you are a liberal. They don`t need to work for a living they can just go out enjoy live and do some "negative spending".
Wow, are you ever spewing out anger! I'm just talking about century old basic physics at a time when there was no concern about the current social complexities of warmers and deniers; and physical complexities of the atmosphere.
...as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction...
It's very simple basic arithmetic!!
If you think the hyperphysics explanation is plain stupid, how would you write the SB equation for a cold sphere suspended from the ceiling in the middle of a uniformly warm room. We already know how to do it if the sphere is warmer than the room
.
Geezus I almost overlooked this "scientific" gem Wuwei posted here:You and sunsettommy are confused. Only short wave photons - visible, or near visible - can be absorbed by electrons orbiting nuclei. In atmospheric physics the emissions at ambient temperatures are long wave radiation. Those photons don't have near enough energy to excite an orbital electron.Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element.
The long wave radiation from the earth excites vibration modes of the GHGs. I would think you would know that by now.
And there it is again, the usual spiel. Copy and paste the "anger spewing" part I am supposed to be guilty of and file a complaint with Cathy Areu or whoever is your local liberal sherpa.It does not "bother" me it`s just plain stupid to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. It can not so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction. But it all makes sense if you are a liberal. They don`t need to work for a living they can just go out enjoy live and do some "negative spending".
Wow, are you ever spewing out anger! I'm just talking about century old basic physics at a time when there was no concern about the current social complexities of warmers and deniers; and physical complexities of the atmosphere.
...as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction...
It's very simple basic arithmetic!!
If you think the hyperphysics explanation is plain stupid, how would you write the SB equation for a cold sphere suspended from the ceiling in the middle of a uniformly warm room. We already know how to do it if the sphere is warmer than the room
.
I should have guessed it you can`t handle criticism and need to be cuddled.
And now you have a problem figuring out why the SB equation as it is already states how much radiation the colder sphere absorbs. No need to reverse the T^4 -Tc^4 subtraction and change the SB equation to the BS equation Tc^4 - T^4 and calculate how much negative P bullshit comes out after that.
Hahaha, like the room must have gotten warmer as soon as the cold sphere was added and it also radiates . How much warmer ask the warmists? By as much as σ*(Tc^4 - Tw^4) watts more per m^2 "negative net radiated power" as without it sayeth the hyperphysics hyper idiots.
Geezus I almost overlooked this "scientific" gem Wuwei posted here:You and sunsettommy are confused. Only short wave photons - visible, or near visible - can be absorbed by electrons orbiting nuclei. In atmospheric physics the emissions at ambient temperatures are long wave radiation. Those photons don't have near enough energy to excite an orbital electron.Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element.
The long wave radiation from the earth excites vibration modes of the GHGs. I would think you would know that by now.
"You and sunsettommy are confused. Only short wave photons - visible, or near visible - can be absorbed by electrons orbiting nuclei. In atmospheric physics the emissions at ambient temperatures are long wave radiation. Those photons don't have near enough energy to excite an orbital electron."
According to him every CO2 absorption band every IR spec-scope detected has nothing to do with the electrons that make up the O=C=O double bonds and all the text books that say so have to be replaced with Wuwei "hyperphysics".
And there it is again, the usual spiel. Copy and paste the "anger spewing" part I am supposed to be guilty of and file a complaint with Cathy Areu or whoever is your local liberal sherpa.
I should have guessed it you can`t handle criticism and need to be cuddled.
And now you have a problem figuring out why the SB equation as it is already states how much radiation the colder sphere absorbs. No need to reverse the T^4 -Tc^4 subtraction and change the SB equation to the BS equation Tc^4 - T^4 and calculate how much negative P bullshit comes out after that.
Hahaha, like the room must have gotten warmer as soon as the cold sphere was added and it also radiates . How much warmer ask the warmists? By as much as σ*(Tc^4 - Tw^4) watts more per m^2 "negative net radiated power" as without it sayeth the hyperphysics hyper idiots.
It seems you don't know the basics of atomic physics. Crick gave you the details on the vibration mode.According to him every CO2 absorption band every IR spec-scope detected has nothing to do with the electrons that make up the O=C=O double bonds and all the text books that say so have to be replaced with Wuwei "hyperphysics".
And as far as the S-B equation goes, he just can't get past the fact that the S-B law implicitly assumes that T>Tc....but he insists on using this bullshit equation which allows T<Tc, then claims negative radiation.Funny, isn't it...when you point out that they are wrong...and can't produce a single piece of actual evidence to support their claims, they mewl about how angry we are...
Over the years, it has become obvious that in order to be a true believer, they must be willing to drag their poor intellects through any sewer laid before them...
And as far as the S-B equation goes, he just can't get past the fact that the S-B law implicitly assumes that T>Tc....but he insists on using this bullshit equation which allows T<Tc, then claims negative radiation. Then there is the fact that you can't use the SB equation on gasses...but hey, they are willing to drag their intellects through that sewer as far as they feel is necessary.
Hahaha so says the idiot who claims that photons in the IR can`t bump up electron orbitals that resonate at the appropriate frequency. I would like to have a good laugh and see an expert in "hyper atomic physics" like you & Crick show us why not. Crick gave me what? The details on the vibration mode ? No thanks I prefer the official versionIt seems you don't know the basics of atomic physics. Crick gave you the details on the vibration mode.According to him every CO2 absorption band every IR spec-scope detected has nothing to do with the electrons that make up the O=C=O double bonds and all the text books that say so have to be replaced with Wuwei "hyperphysics".
Of course they can if any electron orbital energy levels of the molecules exist at far IR. If so, they would show up in the absorption spectra. They don't show up for CO2.Hahaha so says the idiot who claims that photons in the IR can`t bump up electron orbitals that resonate at the appropriate frequency.
You know damn well that I never said anything of the kind and I know damn well what your motive is, pretending not to know what I did say. For the last time: It does ! And all that results in is a slower rate of cooling EXACTLY AS PER StB. That must be now more than a dozen times that I told you. How many more times are you going to pretend I refused to answer ? Why don`t you try to be honest just for once and admit that its not my answer about radiation you want to hear. It`s an answer that you can twist into something to stab your arch enemy in the back...else you would not build in SSDD into it every time you ask me about heat radiation. I never seen him phrase it the way you do but I have seen you dozens of time trying that same crap with me....and almost everybody else who disagrees with you.Mr P Bear, you have not answered the question. You seem to be aligning yourself with SSDD's contention that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter. Is that correct? Is that your belief?
So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
What if that matter is a thousand light years away and is, when observed, only minutely warmer and in the midst of a process that will result in its cooling dramatically before the thousand years have passed before its IR photons would arrive there? Eh?
The stupidity of that statement exceeds the capability of the English vocabulary to express it.Of course they can if any electron orbital energy levels of the molecules exist at far IR. If so, they would show up in the absorption spectra. They don't show up for CO2.Hahaha so says the idiot who claims that photons in the IR can`t bump up electron orbitals that resonate at the appropriate frequency.
Yeah just like I said...you have people saying all kinds of dumb stuff, like "matter is aware of its surroundings Eh?"..How pathetic is that when you have to fantasize idiotic statements that nobody made so that you have a metric which supports your delusions of intellectual grandeur ?So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
What if that matter is a thousand light years away and is, when observed, only minutely warmer and in the midst of a process that will result in its cooling dramatically before the thousand years have passed before its IR photons would arrive there? Eh?
