No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[jc456]

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

.

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read)

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a ******* waste of time.

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.

ok, it's there now. Perhaps you could have merely asked for it instead of wasting your time as you say. there are ways to communicate that can accommodate the concerns.

 

[IanC]

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

.

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read)

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a ******* waste of time.

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.

ok, it's there now. Perhaps you could have merely asked for it instead of wasting your time as you say. there are ways to communicate that can accommodate the concerns.

'it's there now' ? **** you, it wasn't there when I read the original post.

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

 

[jc456]

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read)

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a ******* waste of time.

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.

ok, it's there now. Perhaps you could have merely asked for it instead of wasting your time as you say. there are ways to communicate that can accommodate the concerns.

'it's there now' ? **** you, it wasn't there when I read the original post.

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

 

[IanC]

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a ******* waste of time.

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.

ok, it's there now. Perhaps you could have merely asked for it instead of wasting your time as you say. there are ways to communicate that can accommodate the concerns.

'it's there now' ? **** you, it wasn't there when I read the original post.

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

This is classic, do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface? The theories on this sound every bit as bizarre as why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth

do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface?

Feel free to explain. And then explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

This is classic, do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface? The theories on this sound every bit as bizarre as why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth

do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface?

Feel free to explain. And then explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

Based upon our current "understanding" there is no explanation as to why the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

This is classic, do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface? The theories on this sound every bit as bizarre as why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth

do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface?

Feel free to explain. And then explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

Based upon our current "understanding" there is no explanation as to why the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface

Why does the cooler surface emit toward the warmer corona?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

This is classic, do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface? The theories on this sound every bit as bizarre as why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth

do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface?

Feel free to explain. And then explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

Based upon our current "understanding" there is no explanation as to why the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface

Why does the cooler surface emit toward the warmer corona?

Hoe do you know that it does?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

This is classic, do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface? The theories on this sound every bit as bizarre as why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth

do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface?

Feel free to explain. And then explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.

Based upon our current "understanding" there is no explanation as to why the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface

Why does the cooler surface emit toward the warmer corona?

Hoe do you know that it does?

Why wouldn't it?

 

[jc456]

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.

ok, it's there now. Perhaps you could have merely asked for it instead of wasting your time as you say. there are ways to communicate that can accommodate the concerns.

'it's there now' ? **** you, it wasn't there when I read the original post.

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

dude you implied he put that quote up because you said something in your post. I merely pointed out to you that was indeed an error on your part. It was there before your post. I read all of the links I feel need reading to make a point. Most of what I read is pure bullcrap.

 

[IanC]

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.

ok, it's there now. Perhaps you could have merely asked for it instead of wasting your time as you say. there are ways to communicate that can accommodate the concerns.

'it's there now' ? **** you, it wasn't there when I read the original post.

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

dude you implied he put that quote up because you said something in your post. I merely pointed out to you that was indeed an error on your part. It was there before your post. I read all of the links I feel need reading to make a point. Most of what I read is pure bullcrap.

Duuuude, I implied nothing of the sort.

I replied to SSDD'S original post, as can be seen by the quote function in my post.

Are you implying that I am a liar? That I changed his quoted post?

How would I know that he edited his post if you hadn't said something? Mind reading? Sorry, I don't believe in the paranormal.

 

[Lewdog]

The Northwest Passage, a mythical link through the Canadian Arctic between the Pacific and Atlantic until 1854, is now a viable commercial route.

Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year but the Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable.

The sea ice melts and freezes on a seasonal cycle. From winter maximum to summer minimum, a typical yearly drop in Arctic sea-ice extent in recent years would be from around 15 to five million square kilometres.

The polar weather is still more than cold enough each winter to re-cover the Arctic Ocean with sea ice.

Unfortunately, the quality and thickness of that return ice has been declining, and the amount that survives has plummeted.

Currently, the Arctic sea-ice extent shows a record low for late October, as calculated by the National Snow and Ice Data Center after measurements began by satellite measurements in 1979.

Now the Antarctic is melting too

 

[SSDD]

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

Ian are you that f'ing stupid?...tell me if you are and I can just go ahead and put you on ignore with toddster....By your own statement, you stated "The first equation describes a single object. Period."

Tell me ian, where, other than a vacuum might you find a single object....PERIOD?...How stupid do you have to be to not get this most basic fact? Is a radiator radiating in an atmosphere a single object....Period?...is the atmosphere itself not another object?...if the object is in the atmosphere do you not have to switch to the version of the equation that alters the amount the object radiates to account for the difference in the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings?

Geez ian, get over your f'ing self and use your brain for just one second....then perhaps you might see you have misunderstood a very very very VERY basic concept and that everything that comes after, is flawed because of your misunderstanding of that very basic concept....

So again, numb nuts....where in the universe, other than an empty vacuum might you have a single object PERIOD?....

 

[SSDD]

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

He has his panties in a wad because he knows he is wrong...and because he knows everything, he is finding it difficult to admit...especially on this, because it is fundamental...he has misunderstood a very basic element of the SB law, and therefore everything he thinks he knows is called into question because he didn't have a good grasp of the basics before he moved on....it must be tough for someone like him to admit to himself that everything he thought he knew is being called into question...and now he will dance and dodge for who knows how long trying to convince himself that the first equation of the SB law describes an object radiating into a vacuum...

He admitted the fact himself, but can't see it...he stated himself that the first equation describes a single object...period....what he failed to recognize is that the only place you can have a single object...period...is in an empty vacuum...if it is anywhere else, then it is not isolated...and you are no longer talking about a single object, but an object in the presence of other objects.

 

[SSDD]

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

Clearly you skip the reading...and obviously you skip the thinking because you believe you already know everything there is to know...well you didn't know the most fundamental fact of the first SB equation...that being that it described an object radiating into an empty vacuum....and therefore everything you think you know after that fundamental fact is tainted by your lack of understanding of the basics....

 

[SSDD]

[

How would I know that he edited his post if you hadn't said something? Mind reading? Sorry, I don't believe in the paranormal.

You don't believe in the paranormal...but do believe in magic back radiation and magical mystical powers of CO2...here is a NEWSFLASH for you ian...there is more observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of the paranormal than there is of back radiation...the greenhouse effect.... and the AGW hypothesis combined...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

He has his panties in a wad because he knows he is wrong...and because he knows everything, he is finding it difficult to admit...especially on this, because it is fundamental...he has misunderstood a very basic element of the SB law, and therefore everything he thinks he knows is called into question because he didn't have a good grasp of the basics before he moved on....it must be tough for someone like him to admit to himself that everything he thought he knew is being called into question...and now he will dance and dodge for who knows how long trying to convince himself that the first equation of the SB law describes an object radiating into a vacuum...

He admitted the fact himself, but can't see it...he stated himself that the first equation describes a single object...period....what he failed to recognize is that the only place you can have a single object...period...is in an empty vacuum...if it is anywhere else, then it is not isolated...and you are no longer talking about a single object, but an object in the presence of other objects.

he has misunderstood a very basic element of the SB law, and therefore everything he thinks he knows is called into question because he didn't have a good grasp of the basics before he moved on.

Explain the dimmer switch theory of emitting.
Does matter emit fewer photons? Or do the photons just have less energy, when another object is nearby?

 

[IanC]

The added quote does nothing to refute my position that the first S-B equation denotes a single object. It is a generalized statement that adds context. Like the term 'reverse racism'. It doesn't mean that a vacuum is necessary for the object to radiate.

Ian are you that f'ing stupid?...tell me if you are and I can just go ahead and put you on ignore with toddster....By your own statement, you stated "The first equation describes a single object. Period."

Tell me ian, where, other than a vacuum might you find a single object....PERIOD?...How stupid do you have to be to not get this most basic fact? Is a radiator radiating in an atmosphere a single object....Period?...is the atmosphere itself not another object?...if the object is in the atmosphere do you not have to switch to the version of the equation that alters the amount the object radiates to account for the difference in the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings?

Geez ian, get over your f'ing self and use your brain for just one second....then perhaps you might see you have misunderstood a very very very VERY basic concept and that everything that comes after, is flawed because of your misunderstanding of that very basic concept....

So again, numb nuts....where in the universe, other than an empty vacuum might you have a single object PERIOD?....

Where has this perfect vacuum with no radiation been found? Prove it with an actual example, or stand a liar.

Where in the equation for a single object is the term for a perfect vacuum? Demonstrate it, because I cannot see it.

 

[IanC]

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

Clearly you skip the reading...and obviously you skip the thinking because you believe you already know everything there is to know...well you didn't know the most fundamental fact of the first SB equation...that being that it described an object radiating into an empty vacuum....and therefore everything you think you know after that fundamental fact is tainted by your lack of understanding of the basics....

Actually you are the one who is lacking in fundamental thinking. The single object version of the S-B law describes the radiation produced by, amazingly obvious, a single object. This radiation is there no matter what the environment is.

If you want to know the net movement of radiation between two objects the you have to use the two term S-B equation.

 

[IanC]

[

How would I know that he edited his post if you hadn't said something? Mind reading? Sorry, I don't believe in the paranormal.

You don't believe in the paranormal...but do believe in magic back radiation and magical mystical powers of CO2...here is a NEWSFLASH for you ian...there is more observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of the paranormal than there is of back radiation...the greenhouse effect.... and the AGW hypothesis combined...

Prove your statements, or stand as an exposed liar.