Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[SSDD]

wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.

I am not sure what the root of this particular point is, but if you are referencing the SB equation it would be wrong mathematically to apply the constant to each T4. Not only wrong mathematically, but just plain bad math. What sort of math requires that you unnecessarily complicate an equation by applying the distributive property when that application is not necessary? Isn't the goal to get the equation down to its most elegant form? If so, applying the distruibutive property is completely unnecessary and just wrong.

To what purpose would you apply the distributive property? What do you get by doing that that you wouldn't get by using the equation as it is actually written?

 

[polarbear]

it make no difference which T^4 is first in the equation. if it results in a negative number then the net radiation is simply in the other direction.

wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.


edit- I see you have accused me of saying heat flows from cold to warm, yet again. care to dig up the quote? of course not, it is easier just to make an unsubstantiated strawman to knock down. I have never said heat flows against the temperature gradient and you know it.

My wife is a diabetic and when we arrived in Winnipeg she realized that she forgot her Insulin kit at home.
So this morning I drove back here to get it....and took the opportunity to use my home PC that has all the bookmarks to see if you are finally showing me your k* (T1^4 -T^24) numbers.
But instead you are now claiming:

it make no difference which T^4 is first in the equation.

You still don`t understand that the ORIGINAL (german text) description of the Stefan Boltzmann law does not use the term "T(h)" as in "hot" and "T(c)" as in cold...it also describes the energy flux and + or - direction

as does any equation where flux direction matters...like directional field lines of a magnet...or the + or - angular momentum of ANY WAVE.

I know full well that you never generated that set of numbers You would get from k*(t1^4 -t2^4)...because had you done so, then it may have dawned on you that you used the St.B. equation in its wrong form when you want to see how the radiation flux varies per degree Kelvin.

For that You need the 1.rst differential of t1^4-T2^4..which is 4*t^3

And then it might have dawned on you just how wrong (Roy Spencer) and you are:

4*x^3 Graph

The numbers Roy or you pick out of thin air because they are "details that don`t matter" would give an increased cooling rate of 1.054 times if you use Roy`s numbers that as he says the 150 F "eventually" stabilized at "at let`s say" 160 F...after he placed a cooler second object next to it.

A 100 Watt heater would already be out paced by a 105.4 watt heat radiation loss just to that second cooler plate of unknown dimensions...never mind the chilled wall enclosure which is at 0 F
Unless You INSULATE it...with a perfect insulator instead of a wall chilled to 0 F
The real world is surrounded by an atmosphere

The not so black body radiation sphere is surrounded by a cooler atmosphere where each 500 foot layer is 1 F colder that the one below it...and out-going heat radiation which conforms to the differential of the Stefan Boltzmann equation radiates it outward 1.054 times faster per delta T already at an altitude below 5000 feet. as it happens at the ground to air interface.

But CO2 can at best decrease the cooling rate by a factor of 1.0017


If our atmosphere were just Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide we would freeze to death were it not for the evaporated water component that is a part of the gas mixture our atmosphere does consist of


The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva]Applying the IR beam source (a so-called Globar , an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to 1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an FTIR spectrometer "Bruker IFS 48" coupled to a PC. The program OPUS was used as analyzing software. A zero bias measurement was made to be subtracted later.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] [SIZE=+1]Results[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Fig. 1 shows the unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm band for 357 ppm CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] and 2.6% H[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]O.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][FONT=Arial, Geneva]rucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]

And that`s just the radiative radiative transfer aspect of the IPCC swindle which is based on "thought experiments" like Spencer`s and used for the smoke and mirror "computer climate models"

But now I better run my wife`s Insulin kit to Winnipeg where we are going to spend the holidays.
Merry Christmas "IanC"

After Christmas when I get back home I would also like to know how you made a straw man out of all these claims that SSDD or everybody else who says is wrong when they said that heat does not flow from cold to hot...
You switch sides faster than Italians do in a war

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.

I am not sure what the root of this particular point is, but if you are referencing the SB equation it would be wrong mathematically to apply the constant to each T4. Not only wrong mathematically, but just plain bad math. What sort of math requires that you unnecessarily complicate an equation by applying the distributive property when that application is not necessary? Isn't the goal to get the equation down to its most elegant form? If so, applying the distruibutive property is completely unnecessary and just wrong.

To what purpose would you apply the distributive property? What do you get by doing that that you wouldn't get by using the equation as it is actually written?

Its not "wrong" to apply the distributive property you frickin moron, the result is the same.

 

[SSDD]

Its not "wrong" to apply the distributive property you frickin moron, the result is the same.

You are an angry a-hole, aren't you? Perhaps if you weren't in the wrong, you could be more calm. Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem? Applying a property when it is unnecessary is simply bad math. Did you learn to unnecessarily complicate equations in your alleged education? What sort of idiot taught you that that it was either correct or acceptable to apply properties to an equation for no apparent reason?

What do you get by applying the distributive property that you would not get by simply sticking to the equation as it was originally written?

 

[IanC]

polarbear
I eat morons
Member #27364

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 543
Thanks: 186
Thanked 315 Times in 226 Posts
Rep Power: 44


Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender
Polarbear, you are going to run afoul of ian here because he views photons as free agents that go zipping about the universe in more or less straight lines till such time as they run into some sort of solid matter.

He doesn't recognize a photon as the smallest possible unit of energy in an electromagnetic field which can exhaust itself in opposition to an EM field of greater magnitude propagated from the opposite direction. He seems to believe that when EM fields cancel, the photons that made up those fields continue to zip about the universe till they hit something even though the EM fields which they made up effectively cancelled each other out or were diminished to the point of non existence via the subtraction of EM fields.

And don't even bother mentioning particle-wave duality or the fact that phenomena like interference and cancelling of EM fields can only be explained if one assumes EM fields to be waves rather than separate photons zipping about the universe till they run into some sort of solid matter.




That may be so, but then again this is more or less how the strange universe which is ruled by "climatology-physics" photons are supposed to behave...and if IanC is restricting his reading material to this kind of "simple matter" physics to defend Trenberth`s "energy budget" or Spencer`s example, which is a pseudo-logic classic then I won`t fault him (personally) .

I went back to look at that old thread to see if it actually was you that posted the misleading spectra graphs of incandescent and florescent bulbs with the IR portion truncated. it was.

I also re-read some of the posts and it backs up how you agreed with nonsense from wirebender and gslack while fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements. I finally ended up calling you an asshole then and I feel pretty justified calling you a hypocritical asshole now.

you should be ashamed of yourself for being willing to say anything, and agree with people who are obviously wrong just to buttress your extremist 'denier' position which is equally as wrong as the extremist 'warmer' position.

I must admit I foolishly made excuses for your boorish behaviour then, and up until today when I read the whole exchange at one time rather than piecemeal over days. you disgust me because you are obviously smart enough to know better. get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.

 

[SSDD]

fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements.

There is no reason to stand in the middle of the road.

get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.

Wow. You are even angrier than oooba dooba looba and apparently even more bitter than old rocks and rolling whats his name. Wishing death on someone because they don't agree with you? What sort of person thinks like that?

 

[IanC]

fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements.

There is no reason to stand in the middle of the road.

get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.

Wow. You are even angrier than oooba dooba looba and apparently even more bitter than old rocks and rolling whats his name. Wishing death on someone because they don't agree with you? What sort of person thinks like that?

I thought I was pretty explicit on why I was pissed at polarbear. obviously your reading comprehension is deficient.

as far as being in the middle of the road---the warmists have very little to base their claims on and the CO2 mechanism is the only real evidence they have. I personally dont believe that attacking their only strong leg is the way to change public and scientific opinion that global warming is real, and make no mistake, they do. by continuing to erode the much weaker links like feedbacks, climate models, and faulty measurements we can leave them with nothing but an applecore to perch their lunatic conclusions on.

I may be wrong. perhaps N&Z can strengthen their paper thin theory to the point where it is taken seriously. or something else comes along and grabs the public and scientific communities. but until then I think the extreme denial side of the skeptics is doing a disservice to the world by being unreasonable. make your best scientific case! but you also have to be willing to answer hard questions honestly without deflection, dishonesty and discourtesy in the fashion of SSDD, rollingthunder, polarbear or Old Rocks.

I want to see the travesty of CAGW fixed more than I want to be 'right'.

 

[polarbear]

polarbear
I eat morons
Member #27364

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 543
Thanks: 186
Thanked 315 Times in 226 Posts
Rep Power: 44


Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender
Polarbear, you are going to run afoul of ian here because he views photons as free agents that go zipping about the universe in more or less straight lines till such time as they run into some sort of solid matter.

He doesn't recognize a photon as the smallest possible unit of energy in an electromagnetic field which can exhaust itself in opposition to an EM field of greater magnitude propagated from the opposite direction. He seems to believe that when EM fields cancel, the photons that made up those fields continue to zip about the universe till they hit something even though the EM fields which they made up effectively cancelled each other out or were diminished to the point of non existence via the subtraction of EM fields.

And don't even bother mentioning particle-wave duality or the fact that phenomena like interference and cancelling of EM fields can only be explained if one assumes EM fields to be waves rather than separate photons zipping about the universe till they run into some sort of solid matter.




That may be so, but then again this is more or less how the strange universe which is ruled by "climatology-physics" photons are supposed to behave...and if IanC is restricting his reading material to this kind of "simple matter" physics to defend Trenberth`s "energy budget" or Spencer`s example, which is a pseudo-logic classic then I won`t fault him (personally) .

I went back to look at that old thread to see if it actually was you that posted the misleading spectra graphs of incandescent and florescent bulbs with the IR portion truncated. it was.

I also re-read some of the posts and it backs up how you agreed with nonsense from wirebender and gslack while fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements. I finally ended up calling you an asshole then and I feel pretty justified calling you a hypocritical asshole now.

you should be ashamed of yourself for being willing to say anything, and agree with people who are obviously wrong just to buttress your extremist 'denier' position which is equally as wrong as the extremist 'warmer' position.

I must admit I foolishly made excuses for your boorish behaviour then, and up until today when I read the whole exchange at one time rather than piecemeal over days. you disgust me because you are obviously smart enough to know better. get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.

Shit there are too many teenagers at my daughters house playing online games, it takes an eternity just to load a newspaper screen page.
It`s not all that far from Winnipeg back to my house, so I picked up my Roger`s 3G mobile hub at home. They call it a "Rocket hub"...in Winnipeg it does deserve that name, but not when it`s more than 15 licks from the nearest Roger`s node.

So, if I clicked the "Thanks" button at other people`s postings because there was some truth to it that makes me responsible for everything else they wrote?...and suggest I should commit suicide because they offended you ? Yes we do have lots of snowbanks,...and it sure as shit is cold here,...but I don`t consume alcohol...ever...!! nor any other intoxicants.

So what about Your spread sheet array for all these T1^4 - T2^4 scenarios where are they ??

Do You understand what a "rate of increase" or decrease is ?
So what`s the rate in increase for x with a function, f(x)= x^2...it`s the first differential, 2x...the RATE OF INCREASE
For f(x)= x^4 the rate of increase is 4x^3
No matter if you substitute it with a different letter you picked from the alphabet.

T1 > T2. T1 radiates at k * T1^4 the in- or decrease of the ENERGY which is radiated in relation to the Temperature in- or decrease

is ( k* T^4) /delta T = k* 4 T^3 .....

A.) When a hotter Th black body radiates ENERGY and thus cools off to a colder Tc Temperature then it loosesENERGY at a rate of k* 4* Th ^3

B.) When a colder Tc black body radiates ENERGY and cools off as it must to a lower Temperature then looses ENERGY at a rate of k * 4*Tc ^3

In B at the cooler TEMPERATURE the ENERGY transfer rate is much lower than in A at a higher TEMPERATURE


It is therefore impossible to raise the TEMPERATURE of a hotter black body at Th A, which is cooling off , loosing heat ENERGY at a rate of k* 4* Th ^3
with B at Tc, that can supply heat ENERGYat a ratewhich is only k*4*Tc^3


The laws of mathematics apply for any delta T, no matter how large delta T, Th^4 -Tc^4 ; with Th-Tc chosen arbitrarily, or if Th-Tc ==> 1/ ∞

IanC has been studying "Climate Science" and says it does not matter which of the 2 T`s in the equation is plugged in for the body that looses ENERGY at a
higher or a lower rate ....and by equating ENERGY (k* T^4)... with TEMPERATURE they manage to heat a hotter body with a colder one.


But now You`ve gone off the deep end "IanC"...suggesting I should commit suicide to "do my wife a favor". Not only do you confuse which T is what in a simple equation...now you are confusing who my wife is. My wife & I have been happily marries for over 40 years...YOU are not my wife...and I`m not "gay"
I don`t think same sex marriage is Okay. Perhaps the sharp pencil that engineers use when they check the facts hurts those who`s balloon got popped. And the "radiative forcing" which uses a positive feed back mechanism is a balloon full of hot air that just begs to get popped.

 

[SSDD]

I thought I was pretty explicit on why I was pissed at polarbear. obviously your reading comprehension is deficient.

So you wish death on someone because they disagree with you. Do you like what that says about your character?

the warmists have very little to base their claims on and the CO2 mechanism is the only real evidence they have.

Again, you simply assume that they have evidence. The fact is that there isn't a bit of evidence to buttress the claims that CO2 absorption and emission causes warming. Assumption upon assumption is all you have. No evidence whatsoever.

Now do you wish death on me also?

I personally dont believe that attacking their only strong leg is the way to change public and scientific opinion that global warming is real, and make no mistake, they do.

They don't have a strong leg and your belief in the magic to a lesser degree is your own weakness.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?

It "complicates" the problem? Maybe if you're an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?

It "complicates" the problem? Maybe if you're an idiot.

So are you lying when you say you are a physicist or are you just a dishonest
meshuggana who like your idols will say anything, no matter how stupid in an effort to rationalize your belief in CAGW?

Dodging only makes you look stupid so I will ask again, why would one apply the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant? What do you get by applying the distributive property to the SB equation that you don't get by using the equation as it is written.

Try just answering the question instead of following your kneejerk reaction to dodge.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

 

[IanC]

polarbear
I eat morons
Member #27364

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 543
Thanks: 186
Thanked 315 Times in 226 Posts
Rep Power: 44


Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender
Polarbear, you are going to run afoul of ian here because he views photons as free agents that go zipping about the universe in more or less straight lines till such time as they run into some sort of solid matter.

He doesn't recognize a photon as the smallest possible unit of energy in an electromagnetic field which can exhaust itself in opposition to an EM field of greater magnitude propagated from the opposite direction. He seems to believe that when EM fields cancel, the photons that made up those fields continue to zip about the universe till they hit something even though the EM fields which they made up effectively cancelled each other out or were diminished to the point of non existence via the subtraction of EM fields.

And don't even bother mentioning particle-wave duality or the fact that phenomena like interference and cancelling of EM fields can only be explained if one assumes EM fields to be waves rather than separate photons zipping about the universe till they run into some sort of solid matter.




That may be so, but then again this is more or less how the strange universe which is ruled by "climatology-physics" photons are supposed to behave...and if IanC is restricting his reading material to this kind of "simple matter" physics to defend Trenberth`s "energy budget" or Spencer`s example, which is a pseudo-logic classic then I won`t fault him (personally) .

I went back to look at that old thread to see if it actually was you that posted the misleading spectra graphs of incandescent and florescent bulbs with the IR portion truncated. it was.

I also re-read some of the posts and it backs up how you agreed with nonsense from wirebender and gslack while fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements. I finally ended up calling you an asshole then and I feel pretty justified calling you a hypocritical asshole now.

you should be ashamed of yourself for being willing to say anything, and agree with people who are obviously wrong just to buttress your extremist 'denier' position which is equally as wrong as the extremist 'warmer' position.

I must admit I foolishly made excuses for your boorish behaviour then, and up until today when I read the whole exchange at one time rather than piecemeal over days. you disgust me because you are obviously smart enough to know better. get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.

Shit there are too many teenagers at my daughters house playing online games, it takes an eternity just to load a newspaper screen page.
It`s not all that far from Winnipeg back to my house, so I picked up my Roger`s 3G mobile hub at home. They call it a "Rocket hub"...in Winnipeg it does deserve that name, but not when it`s more than 15 licks from the nearest Roger`s node.

So, if I clicked the "Thanks" button at other people`s postings because there was some truth to it that makes me responsible for everything else they wrote?...and suggest I should commit suicide because they offended you ? Yes we do have lots of snowbanks,...and it sure as shit is cold here,...but I don`t consume alcohol...ever...!! nor any other intoxicants.

So what about Your spread sheet array for all these T1^4 - T2^4 scenarios where are they ??

Do You understand what a "rate of increase" or decrease is ?
So what`s the rate in increase for x with a function, f(x)= x^2...it`s the first differential, 2x...the RATE OF INCREASE
For f(x)= x^4 the rate of increase is 4x^3
No matter if you substitute it with a different letter you picked from the alphabet.

T1 > T2. T1 radiates at k * T1^4 the in- or decrease of the ENERGY which is radiated in relation to the Temperature in- or decrease

is ( k* T^4) /delta T = k* 4 T^3 .....

A.) When a hotter Th black body radiates ENERGY and thus cools off to a colder Tc Temperature then it loosesENERGY at a rate of k* 4* Th ^3

B.) When a colder Tc black body radiates ENERGY and cools off as it must to a lower Temperature then looses ENERGY at a rate of k * 4*Tc ^3

In B at the cooler TEMPERATURE the ENERGY transfer rate is much lower than in A at a higher TEMPERATURE


It is therefore impossible to raise the TEMPERATURE of a hotter black body at Th A, which is cooling off , loosing heat ENERGY at a rate of k* 4* Th ^3
with B at Tc, that can supply heat ENERGYat a ratewhich is only k*4*Tc^3


The laws of mathematics apply for any delta T, no matter how large delta T, Th^4 -Tc^4 ; with Th-Tc chosen arbitrarily, or if Th-Tc ==> 1/ ∞

IanC has been studying "Climate Science" and says it does not matter which of the 2 T`s in the equation is plugged in for the body that looses ENERGY at a
higher or a lower rate ....and by equating ENERGY (k* T^4)... with TEMPERATURE they manage to heat a hotter body with a colder one.


But now You`ve gone off the deep end "IanC"...suggesting I should commit suicide to "do my wife a favor". Not only do you confuse which T is what in a simple equation...now you are confusing who my wife is. My wife & I have been happily marries for over 40 years...YOU are not my wife...and I`m not "gay"
I don`t think same sex marriage is Okay. Perhaps the sharp pencil that engineers use when they check the facts hurts those who`s balloon got popped. And the "radiative forcing" which uses a positive feed back mechanism is a balloon full of hot air that just begs to get popped. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmIY90uCmw&feature=youtu.be]LCD to Cam feedback - YouTube[/ame]

here we go again. what is your point? what system are you talking about? the atmosphere and climate? I thought we were talking about Spencer's thought experiment?

in Spencer's experiment there are no rates of change needed. measurements are made at equilibrium points so you are just jerking off. keep on topic or at the very least inform us when you are going to stray.

 

[IanC]

Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?

It "complicates" the problem? Maybe if you're an idiot.

So are you lying when you say you are a physicist or are you just a dishonest
meshuggana who like your idols will say anything, no matter how stupid in an effort to rationalize your belief in CAGW?

Dodging only makes you look stupid so I will ask again, why would one apply the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant? What do you get by applying the distributive property to the SB equation that you don't get by using the equation as it is written.

Try just answering the question instead of following your kneejerk reaction to dodge.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?

It "complicates" the problem? Maybe if you're an idiot.

So are you lying when you say you are a physicist or are you just a dishonest

Neither you ******* moron.

Dodging only makes you look stupid so I will ask again, why would one apply the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant?

It doesn't ******* matter you piddling moron. You remind me of the idiots that occasionally send me emails declaring they've proven Einstein wrong.

LIke this idiot:

Gravity Spheres Theory

 

[SSDD]

hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.

I notice that you didn't answer the question either. Between you two geniuses, you should be able to answer the question I have asked.

Why would you apply any property to an equation that is already elegant? What is to be gained by doing it? What do you get that you don't get when you use the equation as it is actually written?

How about an answer?

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't ******* matter you piddling moron. You remind me of the idiots that occasionally send me emails declaring they've proven Einstein wrong.

Of course it matters and if you were a physicist, you would know that it matters. Now again, why would one apply the distributive property, or any property for that matter to an equation that was already elegant?


If there is a reason for doing it, what is it and if there is no reason, why do it? If you can't answer, then just admit it rather than continuing on in your childish dodge.

Let me ask you this mr "physicist".....do you believe that equations such as the SB actually describe something that is happening or are you under the impression that they are completely abstract?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It doesn't ******* matter you piddling moron. You remind me of the idiots that occasionally send me emails declaring they've proven Einstein wrong.

Of course it matters and if you were a physicist, you would know that it matters. Now again, why would one apply the distributive property, or any property for that matter to an equation that was already elegant?


If there is a reason for doing it, what is it and if there is no reason, why do it? If you can't answer, then just admit it rather than continuing on in your childish dodge.

Let me ask you this mr "physicist".....do you believe that equations such as the SB actually describe something that is happening or are you under the impression that they are completely abstract?

The result is still the same you ******* idiot. Whether or not its "elegant" is a matter of opinion and of no scientific merit.

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.

I notice that you didn't answer the question either. Between you two geniuses, you should be able to answer the question I have asked.

Why would you apply any property to an equation that is already elegant? What is to be gained by doing it? What do you get that you don't get when you use the equation as it is actually written?

How about an answer?

OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.

Planck curves for two objects, one at 10C, the other at -10C. if you wanted to see how much energy was leaving the warmer object to the cooler one how would you do it? in a stripped down, complexities removed thought experiment you would simply calculate the radiation leaving the first, then calculate the radiation leaving the second, subtract them and the net result would be your answer, and depending on whether the answer was positive or negative you would know the direction.

The rate of energy emitted by an ideal surface, frequently called a blackbody, is given by the following relationship:
E = KsbT^4
where T is absolute temperature & Ksb is the Stefan-Boltzamnn constant which is 0.567 x 10-9 W/mK4

you may have noticed that there is only one (T^4) term. that is because the other term is assumed to be zero and 0^4=0. this also the reason why we must measure in the absolute temperature scale of degrees Kelvin.

we could work out both terms and subtract them, but it is easier to just subtract the T^4 terms immediately so that we only have to write the constant terms once.

what I find elegant is how the visual Planck curves so easily describe what is going on in radiation exchanges. it is easy to see why the second law is correct. the warmer object always has an excess of radiation to give to the other cooler object. as the two objects get closer together in temperature there is less and less excess (this is where polarbear's first derivative comes into play) to drive heat exchange. and when the two objects are the same temperature, it shows how there is still an exchange of radiation, just no movement of heat.


I will ask you again....what do you think happens when two objects are the same temperature? you said before that radiation could only go from a warmer to cooler object, even down to one single photon. if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?

 

[SSDD]

OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.

Still no answer. Not to worry, I didn't expect one.

if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?

My suspicion is that it goes in another direction. The 2nd law doesn't just say that energy can't transfer from cool to warm, but that it won't spontaneously move from cool to warm. That statement sounds to me much the same as saying that a dropped rock won't fall spontaneously up, or that water or a marble won't roll spontaneously up hill, or that air won't spontaneously fill a balloon. Why do you think none of those things can happen but somehow energy can go from cool to warm?

 

[SSDD]

The result is still the same you ******* idiot. Whether or not its "elegant" is a matter of opinion and of no scientific merit.

We aren't talking about results, we are talking about equations. Why is it that you can't answer such a simple question. Why would someone apply an unnecessary property to an equation that is already elegant? Is that question over your head? If it is, just say so and I will stop asking. If it isn't, then answer.