Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[SSDD]

.if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.

It's good to know they are reliable.

ATLANTA — Georgia State University will use a recently awarded $499,950 grant from NASA to help improve learning about global climate change for high schoolers, undergraduates and teachers in training, in addition to purchasing a unique urban carbon dioxide monitor to further research and teaching in the field.

“Education about global climate change is essential for everyone in today’s world, and doing it in the compelling context of NASA research motivates learning in science, math and reading,” said Cherilynn Morrow, professor of physics and astronomy and leader of the Georgia State initiative.

Georgia State University News Events

And still they state that neither energy nor heat move from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The equation shows net flow.

So you keep saying but alas it isn't true. If we can't get past that point, we can go nowhere. Even when shown what a two way net flow equation looks like, you can't get it.

SB says that source is incorrect.

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P? You are guilty of misinterpreting several physical laws....they are quite clear and literal...the literal statements don't support your belief so you interpret them incorrectly in an effort to support your belief. Neither energy nor heat move from cool to warm...so sayeth the physical laws. Believe what you want...I will stick with the physical laws as they are supported by every observation ever made.

Hmmmm...Georgia State mentioning net flow.

Again, faulty interpretation...net flow as an implication...not fact as you seem to believe.

One may imagine a small homogeneous spherical material body labeled X at a temperature TX, lying in a radiation field within a large cavity with walls of material labeled Y at a temperature TY. The body X emits its own thermal radiation. At a particular frequency ν, the radiation emitted from a particular cross-section through the centre of X in one sense in a direction normal to that cross-section may be denoted Iν, X (TX), characteristically for the material of X. At that frequency ν, the radiative power from the walls into that cross-section in the opposite sense in that direction may be denoted Iν, Y (TY), for the wall temperature TY. For the material of X, defining the absorptivity αν, X,Y (TX, TY) as the fraction of that incident radiation absorbed by X, that incident energy is absorbed at a rate αν, X,Y (TX, TY) Iν, Y (TY).
The rate q(ν, TX, TY) of accumulation of energy in one sense into the cross-section of the body can then be expressed

Kirchhoff joins the list of people mocking your idiocy.

a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.

 

[jc456]

To all my peer reviewers, I have a new link for you all to look at:


Here, someone is actually looking into this garbage ...link:

Artical belongs to--
Tom Luongo
Proud Member of the Cold Truth Initiative

Thanks Tom and John Casey!!!! read and weep warmists!

 

[SSDD]

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.

Can't stop making up a position for me I see. Are you just a common liar or do you really have reading comprehension issues?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.

Can't stop making up a position for me I see. Are you just a common liar or do you really have reading comprehension issues?

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?

I made up this position for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

To all my peer reviewers, I have a new link for you all to look at:


Here, someone is actually looking into this garbage ...link:

Artical belongs to--
Tom Luongo
Proud Member of the Cold Truth Initiative

Thanks Tom and John Casey!!!! read and weep warmists!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee............................................................

Bet you have a whole bunch of little tin hats, there, JC. Another shit for brains fruitloop conspiracy theory with zero to back it up. Right up there with Frankie Boys hollow moon.

 

[SSDD]

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.

Can't stop making up a position for me I see. Are you just a common liar or do you really have reading comprehension issues?

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?

I made up this position for you?

Giving me credit now for writing physical laws?

 

[jc456]

To all my peer reviewers, I have a new link for you all to look at:


Here, someone is actually looking into this garbage ...link:

Artical belongs to--
Tom Luongo
Proud Member of the Cold Truth Initiative

Thanks Tom and John Casey!!!! read and weep warmists!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee............................................................

Bet you have a whole bunch of little tin hats, there, JC. Another shit for brains fruitloop conspiracy theory with zero to back it up. Right up there with Frankie Boys hollow moon.

And yet..................no experiment!!! I fear sir that it is you who is crazy. Why not provide evidence that supports your claim then? See you all keep asking and I keep providing my side. herr Koch 1901, hypothesis blowed up sir!!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.

Can't stop making up a position for me I see. Are you just a common liar or do you really have reading comprehension issues?

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?

I made up this position for you?

Giving me credit now for writing physical laws?

Giving me credit now for writing physical laws?

I'm giving you credit for hilariously misinterpreting physical laws.

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?

Define P and answer your own question.

 

[IanC]

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.

Can't stop making up a position for me I see. Are you just a common liar or do you really have reading comprehension issues?

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?

I made up this position for you?

Giving me credit now for writing physical laws?

No, we are giving you credit for a bizarre interpretation of physical laws.

when you first joined this message board I tried to get you to discuss the radiative properties of two objects in thermal equilibrium (eg the same temp) and you refused. in a way it is the most important case because it is simplified by having no heat or net energy exchanged at a macroscopic scale.

your major mistake is applying physical properties of matter to light (photons). two streams of water meet somewhere in the middle and disipate because two bits of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time. light does not have the same restriction. two bits of light (photons) simply pass through each other unaffected.

you also confuse the net macroscopic transfer of heat with the underlying mechanism by which radiation transfers energy. all objects radiate in all directions at all times but just because there is radiation happening that does not mean there is NET energy transfer. two equal temperature objects give and receive the same amount energy from each other, therefore there is no net transfer of energy unless you count the small amount of momentum that accounts for increased entropy. your version of no radiation would actually lessen entropy.

you say we have no concrete examples. this is because we cannot measure atomic scale interactions without distorting the outcome. on numerous occasions I have shown you Planck curves for objects at different temperatures.

this is a pictorial description of P = ACs (T14- T24 ). only the area between the two curves is available to transfer heat. the entire lower curve is matched on a one-to-one basis for no net transfer. obviously two objects at the same temp would still produce radiation but there would be none unmatched and unaccounted for, and no transfer of net energy.

SSDD- I have not heard anyone else come to the conclusion that radiation between two objects only goes in one direction. heat only goes in one direction but that is a different subject altogether and significantly more complex.

 

[SSDD]

I'm giving you credit for hilariously misinterpreting physical laws.

I am afraid that it is you who is interpreting....I am taking the physical law literally.

In this equation, P equals the magnitude of the EM field emitting from the radiator. What determines P? Emissivity...The size of the radiator....and the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings. Given those constraints, what misinterpretation do you think I am making?

Define P and answer your own question.[/QUOTE]

P is the power radiated by the black body at all frequencies. What's your point? The answer is still the magnitude of the EM field radiated by the black body is regulated by the difference in the temperature of the black body itself and the temperature of its surroundings.

There is no misinterpretation on my part...if you think the equation means something else, then I am afraid that it is you who is misinterpreting.

 

[SSDD]

No, we are giving you credit for a bizarre interpretation of physical laws.

Sorry Ian, but I am not interpreting....I am taking the equation literally as it was written by SB.

If you look at this equation

and see anything other than an equation that states that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a black body is determined by one of 3 variables, those being its emissivity, its size, and the temperature difference between itself and its surroundings, then it is you who is misinterpreting as you are adding things that are not there.

SSDD- I have not heard anyone else come to the conclusion that radiation between two objects only goes in one direction. heat only goes in one direction but that is a different subject altogether and significantly more complex.

And we are back again....is heat a form of energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another? The answer to that question is critical to your claim and as far as I can tell, today, 15 years into the 21st century, science remains divided on the answer to that very basic question.

 

[IanC]

No, we are giving you credit for a bizarre interpretation of physical laws.

Sorry Ian, but I am not interpreting....I am taking the equation literally as it was written by SB.

If you look at this equation

and see anything other than an equation that states that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a black body is determined by one of 3 variables, those being its emissivity, its size, and the temperature difference between itself and its surroundings, then it is you who is misinterpreting as you are adding things that are not there.

SSDD- I have not heard anyone else come to the conclusion that radiation between two objects only goes in one direction. heat only goes in one direction but that is a different subject altogether and significantly more complex.

And we are back again....is heat a form of energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another? The answer to that question is critical to your claim and as far as I can tell, today, 15 years into the 21st century, science remains divided on the answer to that very basic question.

you are simply muddying the waters by claiming the complex exchange of heat in solids, liquids and gasses by convection, conduction, advection and latent heat is applicable to the fairly simple case of energy loss by radiation.

tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.

actually, according to your position as originally stated, both objects would have to reduce their radiation to allow for only 'net' radiation. is that true according to your philosophy?

 

[SSDD]

tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.

I don't operate on any belief Ian. The second law says that energy doesn't move from cool to warm. Every observation ever made supports that statement. Belief kicks in when you think that something else is happening....like energy moving from cool to warm.

The SB law says that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a blackbody is determined by its emmisivity, its size, and the temperature difference between it and its surroundings. Set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and what does that make P? Again, not belief...just confidence in the physical laws and the fact that every observation ever made supports them...again, it is only belief if you think something else is happening. You are the one who believes that something is happening other than what the law states.

 

[IanC]

tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.

I don't operate on any belief Ian. The second law says that energy doesn't move from cool to warm. Every observation ever made supports that statement. Belief kicks in when you think that something else is happening....like energy moving from cool to warm.

The SB law says that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a blackbody is determined by its emmisivity, its size, and the temperature difference between it and its surroundings. Set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and what does that make P? Again, not belief...just confidence in the physical laws and the fact that every observation ever made supports them...again, it is only belief if you think something else is happening. You are the one who believes that something is happening other than what the law states.

I realize I am wasting my time but.....

if object T1 and object T2 have the same temperature then the power is zero. answer me this, do they stop radiating or not?

 

[SSDD]

tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.

I don't operate on any belief Ian. The second law says that energy doesn't move from cool to warm. Every observation ever made supports that statement. Belief kicks in when you think that something else is happening....like energy moving from cool to warm.

The SB law says that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a blackbody is determined by its emmisivity, its size, and the temperature difference between it and its surroundings. Set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and what does that make P? Again, not belief...just confidence in the physical laws and the fact that every observation ever made supports them...again, it is only belief if you think something else is happening. You are the one who believes that something is happening other than what the law states.

I realize I am wasting my time but.....

if object T1 and object T2 have the same temperature then the power is zero. answer me this, do they stop radiating or not?

Is heat energy, or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell you what, SSo DDumb, why don't you write an article for WUWT. After all, you are representative of the intellectual level of WUWT.

 

[SSDD]

Tell you what, SSo DDumb, why don't you write an article for WUWT. After all, you are representative of the intellectual level of WUWT.

Nothing to say huh....how unsurprising is that?