Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[IanC]

Has any observation been made in the past 150 years that would invalidate the seco hind law of thermodynamics?....or are you just put off because I don't accept an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over every observation ever made?

Who is arguing against the SLoT? I am arguing about your faulty interpretation of it. I totally agree with the SLoT, and entropy is the reason behind it.

I say everything radiates according to its temperature and emmisivity, and the amount of energy transferred between two objects is simply the net radiation going back and forth.

You claim the radiation is throttled down by some unknown mechanism that only allows a gross one way flow of radiation that is equivalent to the net amount. Implying that some controlling force knows the state of every bit of matter and radiation in the universe, and has the ability to control what happens.

I think my Occam's Razor trumps your Maxwell's Daemon but everyone has the right to their own opinion.

 

[SSDD]

Who is arguing against the SLoT? I am arguing about your faulty interpretation of it. I totally agree with the SLoT, and entropy is the reason behind it.

Sorry ian, you are the only one interpreting...it says nothing about net energy flows and yet, you are applying your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model to it in an effort to get it to say net when it says no such thing.

I say everything radiates according to its temperature and emmisivity, and the amount of energy transferred between two objects is simply the net radiation going back and forth.

Well at least you now admit that the surroundings have something to do with what an object radiates...except there is no two way energy flow...

You claim the radiation is throttled down by some unknown mechanism that only allows a gross one way flow of radiation that is equivalent to the net amount.

It isn't a claim ian...it is the result of every observation and measurement ever made...there is no example in reality of net energy flow. The only place it exists is in your model.

I think my Occam's Razor trumps your Maxwell's Daemon but everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Sorry ian...when every observation and measurement supports my position, you are not on the side of occam claiming that the model is correct while every observation ever made is faulty. It never ceases to amaze me how blinded people can become over the output of models....to the point that you believe that occam supports your models over reality.

 

[IanC]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?


Link at Stefan-Boltzmann Law

 

[IanC]

The quote above is yet another statement that describes the NET radiated power. All of these types of descriptions either specifically say net radiation, or simply assume that people understand that it means net radiation.

I wish SSDD would put up a link or two to someone who also believes in his bizarre interpretation of the SLoT and the S-B laws. Probably they don't exist.

This is the most simplified version of the equation, which emphasizes the temperature relationship. It is obvious that the two objects will have to be calculated separately is their emissivity are different. It is less obvious that Area is quite complicated to calculate if one object is not surrounded by the other. eg- consider the small angle shared between the Earth and Sun.

There are also complications if one of the objects has a power source and the other is just passively cooling. The actively heated object will have a temperature that varies depending on its conditions to shed energy as well as the size of the source.

Yet SSDD will not acknowledge any of these other factors, or their consequences.

 

[MindWars]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

H. C. Hottel B. Leckner M. Lapp C. B.Ludwig A. F. Sarofim
and their collaborators on this matter, the combined effect of overlapping
absorption bands causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of a mixture of gases
17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs plotted by Hottel.
However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K)
The results of Hottel and Leckner have been verified by other researchers, like Marshall Lapp, C. B.Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim,who also found the same physical trend of the carbon dioxide.
The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorb
er/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity
of the mixture of gases decreases.
In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of
the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity /emissivity of the atmosphere
Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming
caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by
water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature

It's pretty hard to figure out how all the plants, and trees need CO2 in order to create more Oxygen.

Take away the trees and O. levels decrease, trendys' are so fkn stupid.

Carbon dioxide is in fkn pop/ soda the fizzy stuff..

 

[MindWars]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

H. C. Hottel B. Leckner M. Lapp C. B.Ludwig A. F. Sarofim
and their collaborators on this matter, the combined effect of overlapping
absorption bands causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of a mixture of gases
17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs plotted by Hottel.
However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K)
The results of Hottel and Leckner have been verified by other researchers, like Marshall Lapp, C. B.Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim,who also found the same physical trend of the carbon dioxide.
The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorb
er/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity
of the mixture of gases decreases.
In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of
the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity /emissivity of the atmosphere
Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming
caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by
water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature

It's pretty hard to figure out how all the plants, and trees need CO2 in order to create more Oxygen.

Take away the trees and O. levels decrease, trendys' are so fkn stupid.

Carbon dioxide is in fkn pop/ soda the fizzy stuff..

Retired climatologist Prof. Werner Kirstein: CO2 is “a harmless gas.” "When I go back and look at history, there’s absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature.” IPCC is about marketing. The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” “Today you do not find scientists on the IPCC, instead you have political scientists.”

CO 2 | Search Results | Climate Depot

 

[SSDD]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

So tell me ian...which expression in that equation do you believe addresses net anything?....If you have even the slightest bit of mathematical knowledge, then you know that if a mathematical equation is describing net, then there will be an expression within the equation denoting net...where is it? Or are you just assuming net because that is what you want it to say?

here is a hint...an equation that expresses net would denote two different values for P...and the net would be the difference between the two values. I see no such expression there our even any way to get there with that equation....where do you think it is?

 

[IanC]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

So tell me ian...which expression in that equation do you believe addresses net anything?....If you have even the slightest bit of mathematical knowledge, then you know that if a mathematical equation is describing net, then there will be an expression within the equation denoting net...where is it? Or are you just assuming net because that is what you want it to say?

here is a hint...an equation that expresses net would denote two different values for P...and the net would be the difference between the two values. I see no such expression there our even any way to get there with that equation....where do you think it is?

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4)

Which by the distributive law of mathematics equals-

P = kT^4 - kTc^4

Written out, Net power equals the power of the warm object minus the power in the opposite direction by the cool object.

Are you denying mathematics as well? Plug in the numbers, either way gives the same answer.

 

[polarbear]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

So tell me ian...which expression in that equation do you believe addresses net anything?....If you have even the slightest bit of mathematical knowledge, then you know that if a mathematical equation is describing net, then there will be an expression within the equation denoting net...where is it? Or are you just assuming net because that is what you want it to say?

here is a hint...an equation that expresses net would denote two different values for P...and the net would be the difference between the two values. I see no such expression there our even any way to get there with that equation....where do you think it is?

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4)

Which by the distributive law of mathematics equals-

P = kT^4 - kTc^4

Written out, Net power equals the power of the warm object minus the power in the opposite direction by the cool object.

Are you denying mathematics as well? Plug in the numbers, either way gives the same answer.

See that is the problem : "is assumed to be and therefore....."
You over simplified a complex process which is solar heat in - the part reflected and absorbed going down; remainder absorbed by the surface; which then splits the energy it looses into a convection and a radiation path going up into a medium which is n-degrees above 0 Kelvin. And the medium which is n degrees above 0 K, absorbing some of the heat has nothing in common with the surface that was heated by the sun. Specific heat, absorption, emissivity and even the composition of this medium (the air) which can change from one hour to the next is entirely different from the surface and about as far away from black body radiation characteristics as you can get.
And finally lets address your definition of "heating" for the umptieth time,
You insist on calling an object being heated while the temperature of the object is decreasing even though it is transmitting the energy it is loosing into an above 0 Kelvin medium.
Nobody ever called this "heating" till the tree whisperer and the IPCC came along and created the fertilizer that left threaded wing nuts use to grow their new-speek vocabulary mumbo jumbo
They redefined "heating" much the same as what their definition of "new jobs" is in the wake of the staggering job losses while they printed ever more food stamps and paper money backed by fictional collateral
This reverse heating of hot with cold is nothing more than the twisting of the meaning of words be they written in constitutional law or physics laws.
Your usage of the StB equation expresses how much energy flows from hot to cold no matter how you try to phrase it and if your thinking were as correct as you keep saying then you should rearrange the StB equation accordingly and put Tc in front of the minus and the other (higher)T behind it.
After all you are the one who insists that Tc is heating the other, the hotter component in that equation.
But you won't because you know full well that you would have invented an energy state that does not exist namely something that has a below zero energy state,
In any equation you are allowed to vary a variable at will within the realm of the possible; so you are entirely free to vary T1 to less than T2 and plug these variables into the StB.
So why don't you?
Is it because Herr Boltzmann said somewhere that you are not allowed to vary the first T variable to a value below the second variable?
If he did I would like to see that stipulation !
Or is it because you do in fact realize how absurd the outcome is if you were to do that?
You would not be in this predicament if you would not call something "heating" which is in fact a cooling process just as the StB equation is expressing it in mathematical form.
In no way does the StB equation that you keep quoting express HEATING.
It shows the rate of cooling in relation to temperature just as Herr Boltzmann intended !
Does it not occur to you that if he intended to express heating instead of cooling he would have had to specify the absorptivity instead of the emissivity

 

[Billy_Bob]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

So tell me ian...which expression in that equation do you believe addresses net anything?....If you have even the slightest bit of mathematical knowledge, then you know that if a mathematical equation is describing net, then there will be an expression within the equation denoting net...where is it? Or are you just assuming net because that is what you want it to say?

here is a hint...an equation that expresses net would denote two different values for P...and the net would be the difference between the two values. I see no such expression there our even any way to get there with that equation....where do you think it is?

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4)

Which by the distributive law of mathematics equals-

P = kT^4 - kTc^4

Written out, Net power equals the power of the warm object minus the power in the opposite direction by the cool object.

Are you denying mathematics as well? Plug in the numbers, either way gives the same answer.

See that is the problem : "is assumed to be and therefore....."
You over simplified a complex process which is solar heat in - the part reflected and absorbed going down; remainder absorbed by the surface; which then splits the energy it looses into a convection and a radiation path going up into a medium which is n-degrees above 0 Kelvin. And the medium which is n degrees above 0 K, absorbing some of the heat has nothing in common with the surface that was heated by the sun. Specific heat, absorption, emissivity and even the composition of this medium (the air) which can change from one hour to the next is entirely different from the surface and about as far away from black body radiation characteristics as you can get.
And finally lets address your definition of "heating" for the umptieth time,
You insist on calling an object being heated while the temperature of the object is decreasing even though it is transmitting the energy it is loosing into an above 0 Kelvin medium.
Nobody ever called this "heating" till the tree whisperer and the IPCC came along and created the fertilizer that left threaded wing nuts use to grow their new-speek vocabulary mumbo jumbo
They redefined "heating" much the same as what their definition of "new jobs" is in the wake of the staggering job losses while they printed ever more food stamps and paper money backed by fictional collateral
This reverse heating of hot with cold is nothing more than the twisting of the meaning of words be they written in constitutional law or physics laws.
Your usage of the StB equation expresses how much energy flows from hot to cold no matter how you try to phrase it and if your thinking were as correct as you keep saying then you should rearrange the StB equation accordingly and put Tc in front of the minus and the other (higher)T behind it.
After all you are the one who insists that Tc is heating the other, the hotter component in that equation.
But you won't because you know full well that you would have invented an energy state that does not exist namely something that has a below zero energy state,
In any equation you are allowed to vary a variable at will within the realm of the possible; so you are entirely free to vary T1 to less than T2 and plug these variables into the StB.
So why don't you?
Is it because Herr Boltzmann said somewhere that you are not allowed to vary the first T variable to a value below the second variable?
If he did I would like to see that stipulation !
Or is it because you do in fact realize how absurd the outcome is if you were to do that?
You would not be in this predicament if you would not call something "heating" which is in fact a cooling process just as the StB equation is expressing it in mathematical form.
In no way does the StB equation that you keep quoting express HEATING.
It shows the rate of cooling in relation to temperature just as Herr Boltzmann intended !
Does it not occur to you that if he intended to express heating instead of cooling he would have had to specify the absorptivity instead of the emissivity

Its not "heating", it is energy flow.. More positive to less positive... Nothing I can find in the physical laws depicts a cooler object warming a hotter one as energy can not flow in this direction.

 

[SSDD]

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

So you have an assumption. That's it?

And here is a newsflash for you ian...Stefan didn't assume jack...you are the one doing the assuming...and far to much of the shit heap that is post modern science is assuming. Excuse me if I stick with every observation and measurement ever made and leave the assuming to the dingleberry tribe.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

So tell me ian...which expression in that equation do you believe addresses net anything?....If you have even the slightest bit of mathematical knowledge, then you know that if a mathematical equation is describing net, then there will be an expression within the equation denoting net...where is it? Or are you just assuming net because that is what you want it to say?

here is a hint...an equation that expresses net would denote two different values for P...and the net would be the difference between the two values. I see no such expression there our even any way to get there with that equation....where do you think it is?

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4)

Which by the distributive law of mathematics equals-

P = kT^4 - kTc^4

Written out, Net power equals the power of the warm object minus the power in the opposite direction by the cool object.

Are you denying mathematics as well? Plug in the numbers, either way gives the same answer.

See that is the problem : "is assumed to be and therefore....."
You over simplified a complex process which is solar heat in - the part reflected and absorbed going down; remainder absorbed by the surface; which then splits the energy it looses into a convection and a radiation path going up into a medium which is n-degrees above 0 Kelvin. And the medium which is n degrees above 0 K, absorbing some of the heat has nothing in common with the surface that was heated by the sun. Specific heat, absorption, emissivity and even the composition of this medium (the air) which can change from one hour to the next is entirely different from the surface and about as far away from black body radiation characteristics as you can get.
And finally lets address your definition of "heating" for the umptieth time,
You insist on calling an object being heated while the temperature of the object is decreasing even though it is transmitting the energy it is loosing into an above 0 Kelvin medium.
Nobody ever called this "heating" till the tree whisperer and the IPCC came along and created the fertilizer that left threaded wing nuts use to grow their new-speek vocabulary mumbo jumbo
They redefined "heating" much the same as what their definition of "new jobs" is in the wake of the staggering job losses while they printed ever more food stamps and paper money backed by fictional collateral
This reverse heating of hot with cold is nothing more than the twisting of the meaning of words be they written in constitutional law or physics laws.
Your usage of the StB equation expresses how much energy flows from hot to cold no matter how you try to phrase it and if your thinking were as correct as you keep saying then you should rearrange the StB equation accordingly and put Tc in front of the minus and the other (higher)T behind it.
After all you are the one who insists that Tc is heating the other, the hotter component in that equation.
But you won't because you know full well that you would have invented an energy state that does not exist namely something that has a below zero energy state,
In any equation you are allowed to vary a variable at will within the realm of the possible; so you are entirely free to vary T1 to less than T2 and plug these variables into the StB.
So why don't you?
Is it because Herr Boltzmann said somewhere that you are not allowed to vary the first T variable to a value below the second variable?
If he did I would like to see that stipulation !
Or is it because you do in fact realize how absurd the outcome is if you were to do that?
You would not be in this predicament if you would not call something "heating" which is in fact a cooling process just as the StB equation is expressing it in mathematical form.
In no way does the StB equation that you keep quoting express HEATING.
It shows the rate of cooling in relation to temperature just as Herr Boltzmann intended !
Does it not occur to you that if he intended to express heating instead of cooling he would have had to specify the absorptivity instead of the emissivity

Its not "heating", it is energy flow.. More positive to less positive... Nothing I can find in the physical laws depicts a cooler object warming a hotter one as energy can not flow in this direction.

unless it is mechanical not natural such as a heat pump

 

[SSDD]

unless it is mechanical not natural such as a heat pump

That would be an input of work...energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...you can make it happen all you like if you do work to make it happen.

 

[jon_berzerk]

unless it is mechanical not natural such as a heat pump

That would be an input of work...energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...you can make it happen all you like if you do work to make it happen.

yup like i said it is not natural

 

[IanC]

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

So you have an assumption. That's it?

And here is a newsflash for you ian...Stefan didn't assume jack...you are the one doing the assuming...and far to much of the shit heap that is post modern science is assuming. Excuse me if I stick with every observation and measurement ever made and leave the assuming to the dingleberry tribe.

Whoaaaa now. Let's recap a little bit. I said SSDD was ignoring the complexities of calculating the net power by leaving out emissivity and area considerations. This can only be done by separating each side and doing individual calculations, rather than just subtracting T^4 - Tc^4.

Then SSDD said there wasn't two terms in the equation. As my phone does not handle math terminology images, I bundled the outside terms into a constant (k), and proceeded to show that there were two terms. The simplified version of the S-B equation also assumes emissivity is equal, otherwise it would have separate terms with separate emissivities.


Every time I call SSDD out on an issue he ignores my pointed questions, and changes the subject back to one of his talking points.

He has now criticized my use of the simplified S-B equation and the assumptions inherent in it. Will he now take a more mature view of energy transfer and its complexities? Or will he just revert to claiming only temperature makes a difference? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[IanC]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinarytemperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

So tell me ian...which expression in that equation do you believe addresses net anything?....If you have even the slightest bit of mathematical knowledge, then you know that if a mathematical equation is describing net, then there will be an expression within the equation denoting net...where is it? Or are you just assuming net because that is what you want it to say?

here is a hint...an equation that expresses net would denote two different values for P...and the net would be the difference between the two values. I see no such expression there our even any way to get there with that equation....where do you think it is?

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4)

Which by the distributive law of mathematics equals-

P = kT^4 - kTc^4

Written out, Net power equals the power of the warm object minus the power in the opposite direction by the cool object.

Are you denying mathematics as well? Plug in the numbers, either way gives the same answer.

See that is the problem : "is assumed to be and therefore....."
You over simplified a complex process which is solar heat in - the part reflected and absorbed going down; remainder absorbed by the surface; which then splits the energy it looses into a convection and a radiation path going up into a medium which is n-degrees above 0 Kelvin. And the medium which is n degrees above 0 K, absorbing some of the heat has nothing in common with the surface that was heated by the sun. Specific heat, absorption, emissivity and even the composition of this medium (the air) which can change from one hour to the next is entirely different from the surface and about as far away from black body radiation characteristics as you can get.
And finally lets address your definition of "heating" for the umptieth time,
You insist on calling an object being heated while the temperature of the object is decreasing even though it is transmitting the energy it is loosing into an above 0 Kelvin medium.
Nobody ever called this "heating" till the tree whisperer and the IPCC came along and created the fertilizer that left threaded wing nuts use to grow their new-speek vocabulary mumbo jumbo
They redefined "heating" much the same as what their definition of "new jobs" is in the wake of the staggering job losses while they printed ever more food stamps and paper money backed by fictional collateral
This reverse heating of hot with cold is nothing more than the twisting of the meaning of words be they written in constitutional law or physics laws.
Your usage of the StB equation expresses how much energy flows from hot to cold no matter how you try to phrase it and if your thinking were as correct as you keep saying then you should rearrange the StB equation accordingly and put Tc in front of the minus and the other (higher)T behind it.
After all you are the one who insists that Tc is heating the other, the hotter component in that equation.
But you won't because you know full well that you would have invented an energy state that does not exist namely something that has a below zero energy state,
In any equation you are allowed to vary a variable at will within the realm of the possible; so you are entirely free to vary T1 to less than T2 and plug these variables into the StB.
So why don't you?
Is it because Herr Boltzmann said somewhere that you are not allowed to vary the first T variable to a value below the second variable?
If he did I would like to see that stipulation !
Or is it because you do in fact realize how absurd the outcome is if you were to do that?
You would not be in this predicament if you would not call something "heating" which is in fact a cooling process just as the StB equation is expressing it in mathematical form.
In no way does the StB equation that you keep quoting express HEATING.
It shows the rate of cooling in relation to temperature just as Herr Boltzmann intended !
Does it not occur to you that if he intended to express heating instead of cooling he would have had to specify the absorptivity instead of the emissivity

Are you complaining that the ultra simplified version of the S-B equation shouldn't be used? Then shouldn't you be taking that up with SSDD, not me? Surely you cannot be arguing that the emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are changed somehow by combining them into a single constant (k)?

For the umpteenth time, stop claiming that I say that cooler objects heat warmer objects! I dare you to find a quote of mine that says that. There is a huge difference between saying an object with a power source will move towards a higher equilibrium temperature if a cool object reduces the ability to shed energy from the powered (heated) object, versus saying the cool object is directly heating the warm object.

With no power source both the warm and cool objects will be losing energy, hence they will both be cooling by passive radiation. If one object has a power source it will heat up until it is radiating enough to lose as much energy as it is receiving. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding such a simple concept?

I am more than willing to delve into the complexities but first we have to come to some sort of agreement on the basics.

 

[IanC]

Your usage of the StB equation expresses how much energy flows from hot to cold no matter how you try to phrase it and if your thinking were as correct as you keep saying then you should rearrange the StB equation accordingly and put Tc in front of the minus and the other (higher)T behind it.
After all you are the one who insists that Tc is heating the other, the hotter component in that equation.
But you won't because you know full well that you would have invented an energy state that does not exist namely something that has a below zero energy state

Are you crazy, or just so bent out of shape to deny anything I say that you are willing to say crazy things?

First, it makes no difference which object is first in the S-B equation. If it gives a negative answer that simply means the net energy is flowing in the opposite direction, not that there is 'negative energy'. What a dolt you are!

Next, let's take the special case of two objects at the same temperature, and with the same emissivities. I say they both radiate according to their temperatures but because the same amount is going in each direction there is no net energy flow between them. SSDD says there is no radiation at all, none in either direction and no net flow. Which of us do you agree with? Or do you have an alternative position?

The radiation produced by each object is occurring at the same time. While you can calculate how much is going in either direction, you can only determine warming or cooling by the direction of the net flow. A warmer object produces more radiation (at a slightly higher energy range) than a cooler object. Therefore the net flow will always be from warm to cool. What part of this simple concept are you having trouble with? Perhaps I can help you to understand.

 

[IanC]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

 

[SSDD]

Every time I call SSDD out on an issue he ignores my pointed questions, and changes the subject back to one of his talking points.

No ian..what I do is point out how f'ing stupid your issues are..they are imaginary based on a belief in magic...your insistence that the SB equation contains an expression for calculating net is just the cherry on the top of your wackiness...No further convincing is necessary...I believe that you have fully earned your first class seat on the AGW crazy train.

 

[SSDD]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

Thinking people don't see what you se ian because thinking people don't put much stock in magic...or models that have proven themselves to be failures...or hypotheses that have had multiple predictive failures. Be as condescending as you like...hell, you have a first class seat on the crazy train...right up there in the front...rubbing elbows with the likes of mikey mann, crick, rocks, and the hairball.

Let me know when someone actually observes and measures two way energy flow.