Yes, 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't say the body emits less, it very clearly says the body receives back.

Yeah, that's what it says...That, isn't, however, what the SB law says. The SB law describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. And there was no measurement there...there was simply, and predictably, an unobserved, unmeasured, untested claim.

If you have such a difficult time understanding such a clear statement, you have bigger issues than your confusion over the SB and the 2nd Law. Sorry.

Clear, unmeasured, unobserved, untested statement....it was an opinion...nothing more. No energy was measured being absorbed by the human bodies...if any actual measurement was done at all, all that was shown was that the amount of energy the body radiates is dependent on the temperature difference between the body and its surroundings...just as the SB law predicts...and predicts, by the way, with a mathematical expression describing a one way energy flow.

You lose again. You can win in one of two ways...either show the impossible, that being an actual observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving between a cool object and a warm object...or stop asking stupid questions of someone who didn't write the law as an expression of a one way movement of energy from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings.

The SB law describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

As energy flows from the hotter to the cooler, the difference gets smaller and the speed of the energy flow decreases, until they are exactly the same temperature and then, according to your idiot theory, both stop radiating. And all of this happens without the cooler object telling the universe, or the nearby warmer object, what its temperature is.
See, your smart wave theory is stupid. Illogical. Impossible.

 

[MDiver]

The Arctic is disappearing. The permafrost is defrosting. Glaciers across the globe have either disappeared or are significantly receding.
Droughts are more severe and rivers are drying up. I certainly stand with those scientists that agree that the planet is heating up and that man is the cause. I used to try to get people around me to listen to the scientists and push for change in our behavior, but it fell on deaf ears. I don't worry about it any more. Man is self-absorbed and will ignore all until it bites him/her in the rear. But of course, by then the planet will be dying for sure and nothing will bring it back. As for those who say, "I'll be dead and I won't care," your great-grandchildren will certainly care.

 

[konradv]

Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change

 

[SSDD]

Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?

Your failure to answer the question doesn't make the question stupid, it only proves that you are.

So your failure to describe how the electrons "know" that they can or can not travel down the wire proves how stupid you are? UK..Got it. But we are still left with SB expressing the SB LAW as a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....How stupid does that make them?

Good, because no one else wrote an equation like that either.

Now that is just stupid... SB did write this....

and it is an expression of the SB law...and it does, in fact, describe a one way energy transfer with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....To claim that it never happened is denial of the first order...and just stupid.

By the way...are you claiming that scientific american is infallible....is incapable of expressing an erroneous opinion...and has never experienced a retraction?

 

[SSDD]

Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change

Based on what?

• Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
• Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
• Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
• Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
• Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

 

[Crick]

I think the increase in their certitudemay well be due to them not relying on conservative, fossil fuel-funded blogs for their data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?

Your failure to answer the question doesn't make the question stupid, it only proves that you are.

So your failure to describe how the electrons "know" that they can or can not travel down the wire proves how stupid you are? UK..Got it. But we are still left with SB expressing the SB LAW as a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....How stupid does that make them?

Good, because no one else wrote an equation like that either.

Now that is just stupid... SB did write this....

and it is an expression of the SB law...and it does, in fact, describe a one way energy transfer with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....To claim that it never happened is denial of the first order...and just stupid.

By the way...are you claiming that scientific american is infallible....is incapable of expressing an erroneous opinion...and has never experienced a retraction?

Once we straighten out your confusion about the SB, we can talk about electrons as much as you'd like.
Until then, quit avoiding the topic.

But we are still left with SB expressing the SB LAW as a one way energy transfer

Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.

the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....To claim that it never happened is denial of the first order...and just stupid.

If, as you incorrectly claim, the cooler object ceases all radiating, the warmer object never knows how fast to radiate or when to stop radiating. Sorry, that's your stupid claim in a nutshell.

By the way...are you claiming that scientific american is infallible

Of course I never claimed Science magazine was infallible, but between them in 1963 and you today, the choice is clear.
You haven't discovered a new facet of the SB or the 2nd Law, you just don't understand them.

That's why you should write to them, today, and reference their huge "error" from 1963.
Be sure to post their response here, so that everyone can stop mocking your ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate Change...LOLz

 

[jc456]

Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[SSDD]

Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.

So now you are a real denier...how does it feel.

Are you really this slow? Does one way energy transfer down a wire require smart electrons? When you connect the 9 volt battery to the 12 volt battery does it require that the electrons disappear from the 9 volt battery? Interesting that you are stuck in such a small box...must suck.

If, as you incorrectly claim, the cooler object ceases all radiating, the warmer object never knows how fast to radiate or when to stop radiating. Sorry, that's your stupid claim in a nutshell.

So now it is back to lies and misrepresenting my position to give yourself something to argue against...how original. As I have stated...over and over...the cooler object simply doesn't radiate towards the warmer object...does the 9 volt battery still store electricity?...of course it does....does that electricity move down the wire if there is a 12 volt battery connected to the other end? No, it doesn't. How do you think it knows not to try to go down the wire? Is intelligence required...or simply a type of radiative contact with the greater field coming from the 12 volt battery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.

So now you are a real denier...how does it feel.

Are you really this slow? Does one way energy transfer down a wire require smart electrons? When you connect the 9 volt battery to the 12 volt battery does it require that the electrons disappear from the 9 volt battery? Interesting that you are stuck in such a small box...must suck.

If, as you incorrectly claim, the cooler object ceases all radiating, the warmer object never knows how fast to radiate or when to stop radiating. Sorry, that's your stupid claim in a nutshell.

So now it is back to lies and misrepresenting my position to give yourself something to argue against...how original. As I have stated...over and over...the cooler object simply doesn't radiate towards the warmer object...does the 9 volt battery still store electricity?...of course it does....does that electricity move down the wire if there is a 12 volt battery connected to the other end? No, it doesn't. How do you think it knows not to try to go down the wire? Is intelligence required...or simply a type of radiative contact with the greater field coming from the 12 volt battery.

So now you are a real denier

You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Does one way energy transfer down a wire require smart electrons?

One way radiating of energy between objects above 0 K requires smart photons, or smart waves, if you don't believe in photons.

So now it is back to lies and misrepresenting my position

Your position violates SB and causality, how is that a misrepresention?

the cooler object simply doesn't radiate towards the warmer object

The cooler object constantly radiates in all directions, as explained here: 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 .

A photon, or energy, if you don't believe in photons, doesn't measure the temperature of nearby objects before it decides whether or not to radiate.

 

[IanC]

Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.

So now you are a real denier...how does it feel.

Are you really this slow? Does one way energy transfer down a wire require smart electrons? When you connect the 9 volt battery to the 12 volt battery does it require that the electrons disappear from the 9 volt battery? Interesting that you are stuck in such a small box...must suck.

If, as you incorrectly claim, the cooler object ceases all radiating, the warmer object never knows how fast to radiate or when to stop radiating. Sorry, that's your stupid claim in a nutshell.

So now it is back to lies and misrepresenting my position to give yourself something to argue against...how original. As I have stated...over and over...the cooler object simply doesn't radiate towards the warmer object...does the 9 volt battery still store electricity?...of course it does....does that electricity move down the wire if there is a 12 volt battery connected to the other end? No, it doesn't. How do you think it knows not to try to go down the wire? Is intelligence required...or simply a type of radiative contact with the greater field coming from the 12 volt battery.

the movement of electrons is a net force scenario like a tug-of-war contest. Just because the losing side is overpowered that doesn't mean they didn't pull.

 

[SSDD]

You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

And I never suggested that they do...you find it necessary to lie about what I have said because your argument is weak...Does the 9 volt battery suddenly stop sending electrons down the wire when the 12 volt battery is connected to the other end?....how does the 9 volt battery know that there is a 12 volt battery on the other end.

One way radiating of energy between objects above 0 K requires smart photons, or smart waves, if you don't believe in photons.

Your failure to answer is really looking bad...if one way radiating of energy between objects requires smart photons...does one way movement of electricity down a wire that has an energy source at each end require smart electrons? Either electrons are as smart as photons...or neither are smart and simply behaving as the forces of nature demand that they behave....according to Occam, which do you think is more likely?

Your position violates SB and causality, how is that a misrepresent ion?

My position is the SB law...and nothing else. The law describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperaure difference between the object and its surroundings...you, on the other hand are denying the SB law while trying to use it to support your claim. The equation does describe a one way energy transfer....there is no getting around that fact.

The cooler object constantly radiates in all directions, as explained here:

And the electrical source constantly sends its free electrons down the wire....except when it doesn't. How does it know that there is an electrical source with an output at a higher magnitude on the other end of the wire?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma , is a physical constant involving black body radiation.

Yeah, ....you keep saying that...apparently without realizing that you are talking about the most basic tenet of the SB law...that being a perfect black body radiating into an empty vacuum....the law doesn't stop there...it actually enters the real world with more complex equations that use the SB constant...The real world equations describe what happens when a radiator is not radiating into a vacuum...and those equations describe a one way energy flow between the radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....

A photon, or energy, if you don't believe in photons, doesn't measure the temperature of nearby objects before it decides whether or not to radiate.

And neither does an electron and yet, an electron won't move down a wire when there is a more powerful source sending electrons down the wire in the opposite direction....Do you think electrons are smart?...do you think they have little meters and probe ahead on the wire to see if there are electrons from a more powerful energy source coming down the wire from the opposite direction? Do you think that the 9 volt battery has to know that there is a 12 volt battery at the other end of the wire and somehow hold back its electrons from going down the wire anyway? What do you think is happening with those electrons?....Do you really think they are as smart as photons?

 

[SSDD]

the movement of electrons is a net force scenario like a tug-of-war contest. Just because the losing side is overpowered that doesn't mean they didn't pull.

And how do you suppose that is different from the energy radiating from two objects at different temperatures...I know you will claim photons don't interact with each other, as if you know photons to exist but the fact remains that you don't know whether they exist or not....you can't say whether IR is a wave or a shower of photons because we simply do not know...and you can say what science believes photons are like, but can't bring yourself to admit that science isn't sure whether or not they even exist....much less whether they are exactly like they believe the theoretical particles to be. If IR is, in fact, a wave, then the story is entirely different and one way energy transfer makes far more sense than two way net exchanges.. Observation tells us that energy moves in one direction...not two.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

And I never suggested that they do...you find it necessary to lie about what I have said because your argument is weak...Does the 9 volt battery suddenly stop sending electrons down the wire when the 12 volt battery is connected to the other end?....how does the 9 volt battery know that there is a 12 volt battery on the other end.

One way radiating of energy between objects above 0 K requires smart photons, or smart waves, if you don't believe in photons.

Your failure to answer is really looking bad...if one way radiating of energy between objects requires smart photons...does one way movement of electricity down a wire that has an energy source at each end require smart electrons? Either electrons are as smart as photons...or neither are smart and simply behaving as the forces of nature demand that they behave....according to Occam, which do you think is more likely?

Your position violates SB and causality, how is that a misrepresent ion?

My position is the SB law...and nothing else. The law describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperaure difference between the object and its surroundings...you, on the other hand are denying the SB law while trying to use it to support your claim. The equation does describe a one way energy transfer....there is no getting around that fact.

The cooler object constantly radiates in all directions, as explained here:

And the electrical source constantly sends its free electrons down the wire....except when it doesn't. How does it know that there is an electrical source with an output at a higher magnitude on the other end of the wire?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma , is a physical constant involving black body radiation.

Yeah, ....you keep saying that...apparently without realizing that you are talking about the most basic tenet of the SB law...that being a perfect black body radiating into an empty vacuum....the law doesn't stop there...it actually enters the real world with more complex equations that use the SB constant...The real world equations describe what happens when a radiator is not radiating into a vacuum...and those equations describe a one way energy flow between the radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....

A photon, or energy, if you don't believe in photons, doesn't measure the temperature of nearby objects before it decides whether or not to radiate.

And neither does an electron and yet, an electron won't move down a wire when there is a more powerful source sending electrons down the wire in the opposite direction....Do you think electrons are smart?...do you think they have little meters and probe ahead on the wire to see if there are electrons from a more powerful energy source coming down the wire from the opposite direction? Do you think that the 9 volt battery has to know that there is a 12 volt battery at the other end of the wire and somehow hold back its electrons from going down the wire anyway? What do you think is happening with those electrons?....Do you really think they are as smart as photons?

You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

And I never suggested that they do..

Changing your story?
An object radiating away at 200K doen't suddenly stop radiating if a 300 K object is placed nearby?

Does the 9 volt battery suddenly stop sending electrons down the wire when the 12 volt battery is connected to the other end?....

Electrical potential will be added or subtracted, depending on the circuit, to give you net current.
Just as SB will show you net energy loss or gain.

Yeah, ....you keep saying that...apparently without realizing that you are talking about the most basic tenet of the SB law...that being a perfect black body radiating into an empty vacuum....the law doesn't stop there

Of course you have to take emissivity into account, it's right there in the formula. Which in no way minimizes your confusion over the issue.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Arctic is disappearing. The permafrost is defrosting. Glaciers across the globe have either disappeared or are significantly receding.
Droughts are more severe and rivers are drying up. I certainly stand with those scientists that agree that the planet is heating up and that man is the cause. I used to try to get people around me to listen to the scientists and push for change in our behavior, but it fell on deaf ears. I don't worry about it any more. Man is self-absorbed and will ignore all until it bites him/her in the rear. But of course, by then the planet will be dying for sure and nothing will bring it back. As for those who say, "I'll be dead and I won't care," your great-grandchildren will certainly care.

Oh Gawd!!!


Another human racist has joined the ENVIRONMENT forum!!!



Meanwhile, everyone and their brother knows there has been zero warming for 215 months now!!! ( about 4 billion links in this forum to support it too!!!)

 

[mamooth]

President Obama just gave a shout-out to John Cook and his excellent work. That's obviously sent the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd at WUWT into a new rage. After all, their masters never got kudos from a president.

Obama Tweet makes Climate Change campaigner s day

Across the nation, you can hear the CDS cultists weeping in impotent rage. Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder. It's over for them, they know it, and they know they can't do anything about it. Pass the popcorn.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

President Obama just gave a shout-out to John Cook and his excellent work. That's obviously sent the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd at WUWT into a new rage. After all, their masters never got kudos from a president.

Obama Tweet makes Climate Change campaigner s day

Across the nation, you can hear the CDS cultists weeping in impotent rage. Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder. It's over for them, they know it, and they know they can't do anything about it. Pass the popcorn.

Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder.

No kidding. Poor Michael Mann and Al Gore.
At least their lies made them some money.

 

[jc456]

President Obama just gave a shout-out to John Cook and his excellent work. That's obviously sent the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd at WUWT into a new rage. After all, their masters never got kudos from a president.

Obama Tweet makes Climate Change campaigner s day

Across the nation, you can hear the CDS cultists weeping in impotent rage. Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder. It's over for them, they know it, and they know they can't do anything about it. Pass the popcorn.

Again, you haven't a clue. Why would we care? We already know Obama's position, he's an alarmist, why wouldn't he follow a cartoonist. the presidency is a joke anyway!

 

[IanC]

You are out of your fucking mind.

For anyone here that never had Algebra 101 in the 6th or 7th grade, the Distributive Property states that

A x (B + C) = AxB + AxC

It says = (EQUALS). It doesn't say it changes the value. The value of the expression on either side of an EQUALS sign isTHE SAME. That's why they call it AN EQUATION. You don't have to get the author's fucking permission to use the Distributive property. If you have a statement that fits one side, it can be rearranged to look like the other side WITHOUT CHANGING A GODDAMNED THING. Period. End of story.
***************************************************************************************

= (e sigma A T^4) - (e sigma A Tc^4).

EQUALS, YOU FUCKING MORON

Still waiting...........can you, or can't you give a rational, scientifically, and mathematically sound reason for applying the distributive property to this equation....

??

Obviously it is mathematically sound to use the distributive rule. That is enough. Scientifically it is useful to know amount of radiation going in various directions from varios sources so that you can visualize how much power is being shunted into alternate non radiative pathways. Logically it is always better to imagine and calculate as many various methods as possible to see if they all agree.

Radiative energy transfer is an ongoing process involving myriads of individual events but it is still granular at small enough time periods. At any one instant of time the process may be going against the flow but statistically the vast amount of interactions will be with the flow.