CO2 Experiments posted here

[mamooth]

.

I lined the equations up to make it easy to see how the terms correspond. Pemit only depends on T. It has nothing to do with Tc.

That equation describes a two way energy flow but that equation is not the SB equation...it is mathematical modeling used to achieve a slight of hand....it doesn't describe an actual physical process as the actual SB equation does.

You've got it backwards and wrong. Your claims do not correspond to the actual physical processes going on. The radiation of the radiator is not affected in any way by the background temperature. Pemit only contains a T^4 term, and does not contain a Tc^4 term.

 

[Crick]

SSDD used the term NET repeatedly until it was pointed out to him. Then suddenly the term GROSS appears. Mamooth's rewrite of the equation is correct. All surfaces radiate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....

I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.

When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....

I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.

When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....

I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.

You still haven't explained why the temperature of the cooler object has any influence on speed of energy flow out of the warmer. It makes no sense, using your smart wave theory, it makes perfect sense in the reality of all objects radiating even when near a warmer object.

Just look at that beautiful formula. No off switch there. No footnote about warmer objects making P=0, instantly.

Try again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.

Look at the equation.....
See the P...that is the net radiated power....The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings....the f'ing equation answers your question regarding different heat loss at different temperatures.

Again...look at the equation . P is net radiated power of the radiator...A is the radiating area....sigma is Stefan's constant....e is the emissivity.....T is the temperature of the radiator....and Tc is the temperature of the surroundings....increase the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you increase P....decrease the difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you decrease P. The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy...they are simply radiating less because the difference between their own temperature and the walls has decreased and thus P has decreased....there is no back radiation...they aren't gaining even the slightest trace of energy from the walls.

This equation describes a one way gross flow of energy

This is what the equation must look ike if you want to show a two way net flow of energy...
Interestingly enough, this version of the SB equation is used by climate science, but not hard physics...Hard science grasps that the SB law is stated in a particular manner because it describes a particular thing...that is, one way, gross energy flow....the soft science of climate science has no hesitation at altering a stated physical law to make it show what they wish it to show whether it is true or not.

There is no such thing as back radiation....energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task.

See the P...that is the net radiated power....

Absolutely! LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....

I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.

When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know

It's easy, plug in the variables of the cooler object into the SB formula, that will tell you how much energy it is emitting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was going to suggest we have an "Experiments Proving AGW" Subforum, but what's the point? It would be empty

 

[Kosh]

And yet still not one post of actual science to prove the AGW cult scriptures.

CO2 does not control climate.

The magnetic field has more to do in controlling climate than CO2.

 

[Crick]

When I told you the planet's magnetic field had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, you went out and googled up a paper. Unfortunately, the paper had NOTHING to say about any relationship between planetary magnetic fields and the greenhouse effect. You've provided nothing else since, including any explanation of YOUR understanding of what relationship exists between the two. As has been the case with you and several of your denier brethren, you don't have the faintest **** of an idea what you're talking about. Your science education ended in the second grade.

The CO2 emitted by human since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced since then. That assertion is accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists and by EVERY major science organization ON THE ******* PLANET. The five assessment reports of the IPCC, constituting many thousands of pages of evidence, almost entirely referenced to published, peer reviewed studies, fully support that contention. Your position, on the other hand, hasn't got shit. Them's the facts, Jack.

 

[jc456]

When I told you the planet's magnetic field had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, you went out and googled up a paper. Unfortunately, the paper had NOTHING to say about any relationship between planetary magnetic fields and the greenhouse effect. You've provided nothing else since, including any explanation of YOUR understanding of what relationship exists between the two. As has been the case with you and several of your denier brethren, you don't have the faintest **** of an idea what you're talking about. Your science education ended in the second grade.

The CO2 emitted by human since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced since then. That assertion is accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists and by EVERY major science organization ON THE ******* PLANET. The five assessment reports of the IPCC, constituting many thousands of pages of evidence, almost entirely referenced to published, peer reviewed studies, fully support that contention. Your position, on the other hand, hasn't got shit. Them's the facts, Jack.

hahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaha.......................truly a hilarious post. I think you're better with the pots and pans................. can you say LoSiNg?

 

[SSDD]

.

I lined the equations up to make it easy to see how the terms correspond. Pemit only depends on T. It has nothing to do with Tc.



You've got it backwards and wrong. Your claims do not correspond to the actual physical processes going on. The radiation of the radiator is not affected in any way by the background temperature. Pemit only contains a T^4 term, and does not contain a Tc^4 term.

Idiot...T is the radiator...Tc is the cooler surroundings.

 

[SSDD]

You still haven't explained why the temperature of the cooler object has any influence on speed of energy flow out of the warmer. It makes no sense, using your smart wave theory, it makes perfect sense in the reality of all objects radiating even when near a warmer object.

Just look at that beautiful formula. No off switch there. No footnote about warmer objects making P=0, instantly.

Try again?

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

I have no idea why...

Obviously.

I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

I know how and it doesn't conflict at all with what the law says.
And it doesn't require smart waves, smart photons or radiation that switches on and off at a moments notice.
It doesn't require warm objects to only radiate from one side or any of the other ridiculous scenarios that
your silly misunderstanding would require.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

And why are you ignoring the above formula?
It says objects radiate according to their temperature.
So why are you right and this formula is wrong?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So far the only 2 experiment are the Al Gore/Bill Nye faked experiment and the Mythbusters 7.3% CO2 experiment

 

[Crick]

Try reading Section 8.1.2 of "Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes" at page 668 of AR5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

 

[IanC]

SSDD likes to bring up gravity. His famous rock knows which way to fall but we don't understand the mechanism. But the earth is also pulled towards the rock.

In much the same fashion as cooler objects radiate towards warmer ones, gravity also has a net force that always affects the less powerful object more. The moon orbits the earth but you can still see the moon's effect by observing the tides. Even the sun has a wobble due to the planets.

Photons, gravitons and the virtual photons that carry electrical/magnetic force can all go in any direction with only the net effect being apparent.

 

[Crick]

You miss some major flaws in your analogy. Gravitation is a fixed value for any given mass. A ton of hydrogen has the same gravitational field as a ton of neutronium. Temperature can cover several dozen orders of magnitude and thermal radiation is affected by surface emissivity - by the optical characteristics of its surface.

 

[SSDD]

You miss some major flaws in your analogy. Gravitation is a fixed value for any given mass. A ton of hydrogen has the same gravitational field as a ton of neutronium. Temperature can cover several dozen orders of magnitude and thermal radiation is affected by surface emissivity - by the optical characteristics of its surface.

And P is entirely dependent upon the difference between T and Tc. The fact that we know what gravity does....and how gravity acts does not mean that we know how gravity works...you expect me to know the precise mechanism by which energy does not transmit from cool to warm and yet you can't describe the precise mechanism which causes a dropped rock to fall down.

 

[SSDD]

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

And why are you ignoring the above formula?
It says objects radiate according to their temperature.
So why are you right and this formula is wrong?

Is that the SB law?

 

[Crick]

It's a version of it. The problem isn't with Stefan Boltzman. It's with your idea that matter somehow modifies its Stefan-Boltzman behavior based on its surroundings.