Northern nations warming faster than global average

[SSDD]

No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.

Although I have brought this up before, I will repeat myself.

The two object S-B equation must be calculated for each object if you want to know what type of radiation is being transferred, instead of just the amount.

Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

 

[Wuwei]

Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

Only your cherry picked equation is for a colder example, but that is not the general case. Where did you get that equation anyway?

We went through this tedium many times before. This is the general case Read the last paragraph 10 times until you get it. This derivation is what all scientists accept.

 

[IanC]

No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.

Although I have brought this up before, I will repeat myself.

The two object S-B equation must be calculated for each object if you want to know what type of radiation is being transferred, instead of just the amount.

Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

I could care less which direction you want the transfer of energy to go in. Either way is fine with me.

What I am pointing out is that bizarroland one way gross flow does not give any indication as to what range of wavelengths will make that transfer. Whereas my two direction net flow does give that information.

I could go on and on, but you won't listen and nobody really cares anyways. Wuwei's description of input and output for a single object is very good because it makes many of the practical complexities moot.

 

[SSDD]

No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.

Although I have brought this up before, I will repeat myself.

The two object S-B equation must be calculated for each object if you want to know what type of radiation is being transferred, instead of just the amount.

Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

I could care less which direction you want the transfer of energy to go in. Either way is fine with me.

What I am pointing out is that bizarroland one way gross flow does not give any indication as to what range of wavelengths will make that transfer. Whereas my two direction net flow does give that information.

I could go on and on, but you won't listen and nobody really cares anyways. Wuwei's description of input and output for a single object is very good because it makes many of the practical complexities moot.

Energy does not move spontaneously between objects emitting at different frequencies. Entropy does not allow energy to become more organized. If you wan't to make it about frequency rather than temperature, it remains the same...low frequency energy does not spontaneously become high frequency energy and move to higher frequency sources.

 

[SSDD]

Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

Only your cherry picked equation is for a colder example, but that is not the general case. Where did you get that equation anyway?

We went through this tedium many times before. This is the general case Read the last paragraph 10 times until you get it. This derivation is what all scientists accept.

GIGO...you can tell an equation to say anything...lets see the observations and measurements of energy spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures...been through this all before...you lost...if you must relive your losses, revisit previous incarnations of this discussion rather than foisting your tedium on the rest of us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

Only your cherry picked equation is for a colder example, but that is not the general case. Where did you get that equation anyway?

We went through this tedium many times before. This is the general case Read the last paragraph 10 times until you get it. This derivation is what all scientists accept.

GIGO...you can tell an equation to say anything...lets see the observations and measurements of energy spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures...been through this all before...you lost...if you must relive your losses, revisit previous incarnations of this discussion rather than foisting your tedium on the rest of us.

lets see the observations and measurements of energy spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures..

I prefer the observations and measurements of energy non-spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures.

 

[Wuwei]

you can tell an equation to say anything.

Oh no you can't. You got it backwards. Years of background science measurements, and observations in many fields went into making the mathematics of thermodynamics. The mathematical expressions of the laws must have the context of the background science. You are throwing away that context and inventing your own interpretations contrary to virtually everyone else, and contrary to every university textbook or lecture.

.you lost...if you must relive your losses, revisit previous incarnations of this discussion rather than foisting your tedium on the rest of us.

I "lost"? Really? You are treating science as a win-lose game! That is hardly the way to look at science! Since you don't believe 150 years of science and "read" equations to serve your biases, you have turned it into a game. Shame on you. It's your gamesmanship which guides you; not science.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

In post #602 I asked where did you get this equation and you didn't answer yet.

 

[IanC]

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

In post #602 I asked where did you get this equation and you didn't answer yet.

Hahahahaha. Are you trying to pin him down to an origin of that equation? Knowing full well that it will be found to be in disagreement with SSDDs bizarroland physics?

Carry on, I like it.

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

In post #602 I asked where did you get this equation and you didn't answer yet.

Hahahahaha. Are you trying to pin him down to an origin of that equation? Knowing full well that it will be found to be in disagreement with SSDDs bizarroland physics?

Carry on, I like it.

You gave away my secret. Now he won't tell me.

.

 

[SSDD]

you can tell an equation to say anything.

Oh no you can't. You got it backwards.

Of course you can...Apply the distributive property to the equation...ignore the fundamental assumption of the SB law that says that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc and you have fake back radiation...of course, you can't find any such spontaneous two way energy movement in the real world...but your equation says that it is real...and if you are prone to believing unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models over reality, then you are ripe to be fooled.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler

In post #602 I asked where did you get this equation and you didn't answer yet.

I have provided you with the source multiple times.....what's the matter? Failing memory?

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Stefan-Boltzmann Law
The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by

For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space.


And yes...I see the word net...but the equation has no expression from which to derive net...net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unbearable, untestable model.

 

[Wuwei]

In your reference to the Hyperphysics site, nowhere is it mentioned that the first form radiates into a vacuum as you always claim.

In the phrase you quoted, "net radiation loss rate" there is a link. Click on it.

At that link they repeat the net form of the SB law and say this"

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.​

They specifically agree with the Dartmouth site where the second fourth power term can be greater or less than the first term.

As far as the spontaneity of energy flow the same hyperphysics site says this:

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

What they are saying is that radiant energy can transfer either way as long as "net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process."

Again, they specifically agree with the Dartmouth site. You are saying both the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites are wrong. The hyperphysics site refers to net four times. It is no mistake. Net is NOT an assumption. It comes from a derivation at the Dartmouth site.

And yes...I see the word net...but the equation has no expression from which to derive net...net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unbearable, untestable model.

Net radiation exchange is the only concept that does not violate other laws of physics. The second form of the SB equation is a model that is well founded, and you want to substitute it for a model that leads to all sorts of contradictions in several other areas of physics.

Yet you always denigrate models, but that's what basic physics is - models that are consistent with experiments.

Your idea of the SB equation is contrary to science going all the way back to Stefan's conclusions of his own experiment.

Your reference to support your idea of the SB law was poorly chosen for your purposes.


.

 

[IanC]

And there you have it. SSDDs reference site explicitly backs up our version of events while suspiciously failing to mention any of SSDDs bizarroland talking points.

How often does that happen? I would like to say every time but occasionally his links miss the topic altogether.

 

[SSDD]

The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...

The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived

An opinion shared by every source, even the ones you occasionally link.
Weird, you never link to a real source that backs your one way only flow.

But we're the model believers.

You never provide a source for your "no radiation at equilibrium" either. Weird.
I could find dozens that agree that at equilibrium absorption equals emission.

You can't find any that agree with your "unobservable, unbearable, untestable" model. Not one. Weird.

 

[IanC]

SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship. There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.

 

[SSDD]

SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship. There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.

SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship. There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.

Read for comprehension...
If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

and again...net is an assumption since net anything can not be derived from that equation.

 

[IanC]

The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...

I believe many physics students have had to use the 'corrupt' version of the S-B net power equation to obtain the correct answer for a missing variable.

 

[SSDD]

The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...

I believe many physics students have had to use the 'corrupt' version of the S-B net power equation to obtain the correct answer for a missing variable.

What do you believe could be derived from an unreduced equation that could not be derived from the reduced equation?