The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Crick]

Yo, Same Shit! Where is the qualification in the SB law that compensates for surrounding temperature as you would have.

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second and T is the absolute temperature (in degrees Kelvin), then E= σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670367 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......

..... times the differences between the fourth power of temperatures. If P is positive it is radiating more power to the background than it receiving. If P is negative it is receiving more power from the background than it is radiating.

Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T. There is no reference nor anything in the formula that says that one temperature is smaller than the other. You not only can't read the equation, but you disagree with the laws of physics.

 

[polarbear]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......

..... times the differences between the fourth power of temperatures. If P is positive it is radiating more power to the background than it receiving. If P is negative it is receiving more power from the background than it is radiating.

Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T. There is no reference nor anything in the formula that says that one temperature is smaller than the other. You not only can't read the equation, but you disagree with the laws of physics.

Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T
For only 25$ even you can join the USC , the Union of Concerned "Scientists" and be a "scientist" even though you have no idea why the -Tc^4 has the letter c . What do you think the "c" stands for, if not for labeling the colder of the 2 temperatures ?
According to you (and some other yahoos) P can be negative, no problem.
Negative power/energy and such only exists in the kind of "science" used for stuff like this:

Statements like the negative power crap you post is a clear indication that you have no clue.
In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their base quantities (such as length, mass, time,)
In dimensional analysis 1 Watt is defined as mass * distance^2 * Time ^-3.
The watt (symbol: W) is a unit of power. In the International System of Units (SI) it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second,[1] and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis it is described by mass * distance squared * time to the neg.3rd power
Crick Wuwei and Toddster can demonstrate that the StB equation can be used to prove that it is possible to get a negative result for M*L^2* T^(-3) any time you want to.
Now we know how UFO`s can fly using negative energy as anti-gravity.

 

[Crick]

Are you joining Same Shit with his claim that cold matter cannot radiate towards warmer matter?

I'm pretty sure that those of us actually in this conversation are familiar with dimensional analysis. However, I have no idea what bearing you think it has on the possible signs of the two T values. And your argument that Tc has to be the colder temperature is ridiculous. I can find a dozen articles on SB two-body radiation that do not use the term Tc and you can present NO text from any authority supporting SSDD's absurd contention.

 

[polarbear]

Are you joining Same Shit with his claim that cold matter cannot radiate towards warmer matter?

Where did I say that?
I did say that jokers like you keep saying that P can be negative and all you can do is ask me a question which is as stupid as a negative P.
TYPICAL !
Now your confused little peabrain has me allegedly saying that cold matter cannot radiate towards warmer matter because I showed you how absurd your negative power concept is.
Now I know for sure that SSDD never said that, because you tried just now to go off on the same tangent with me.
HTF could you possibly function in the real world?
Hahahaha does your car have a gas pedal and a "negative power" pedal right next to it?

 

[Crick]

Then, I repeat, what was the point of your discussion of dimensional analysis?

 

[Wuwei]

Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T
For only 25$ even you can join the USC , the Union of Concerned "Scientists" and be a "scientist" even though you have no idea why the -Tc^4 has the letter c . What do you think the "c" stands for, if not for labeling the colder of the 2 temperatures ?
According to you (and some other yahoos) P can be negative, no problem.
Negative power/energy and such only exists in the kind of "science" used for stuff like this:

Statements like the negative power crap you post is a clear indication that you have no clue.
In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their base quantities (such as length, mass, time,)
In dimensional analysis 1 Watt is defined as mass * distance^2 * Time ^-3.
The watt (symbol: W) is a unit of power. In the International System of Units (SI) it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second,[1] and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis it is described by mass * distance squared * time to the neg.3rd power
Crick Wuwei and Toddster can demonstrate that the StB equation can be used to prove that it is possible to get a negative result for M*L^2* T^(-3) any time you want to.
Now we know how UFO`s can fly using negative energy as anti-gravity.

My God. I don't know why you are always so testy and belligerently sarcastic. You try to demonstrate your knowledge of physics, but you fail to understand what you are talking about.

SSDD quoted a particular formula that Tod posted in # 874 of this thread.

Please notice that Tc is defined as the temperature of the surroundings. The magnitude wrt the radiator is not defined. And please read the text in the last paragraph where they explain the meaning of the case where Tc>T.

You are just as bad as SSDD when it comes to huffing at people when you fail to understand the physics that is being referred to.

.

 

[polarbear]

Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T
For only 25$ even you can join the USC , the Union of Concerned "Scientists" and be a "scientist" even though you have no idea why the -Tc^4 has the letter c . What do you think the "c" stands for, if not for labeling the colder of the 2 temperatures ?
According to you (and some other yahoos) P can be negative, no problem.
Negative power/energy and such only exists in the kind of "science" used for stuff like this:

Statements like the negative power crap you post is a clear indication that you have no clue.
In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their base quantities (such as length, mass, time,)
In dimensional analysis 1 Watt is defined as mass * distance^2 * Time ^-3.
The watt (symbol: W) is a unit of power. In the International System of Units (SI) it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second,[1] and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis it is described by mass * distance squared * time to the neg.3rd power
Crick Wuwei and Toddster can demonstrate that the StB equation can be used to prove that it is possible to get a negative result for M*L^2* T^(-3) any time you want to.
Now we know how UFO`s can fly using negative energy as anti-gravity.

My God. I don't know why you are always so testy and belligerently sarcastic. You try to demonstrate your knowledge of physics, but you fail to understand what you are talking about.

SSDD quoted a particular formula that Tod posted in # 874 of this thread.

Please notice that Tc is defined as the temperature of the surroundings. The magnitude wrt the radiator is not defined. And please read the text in the last paragraph where they explain the meaning of the case where Tc>T.

You are just as bad as SSDD when it comes to huffing at people when you fail to understand the physics that is being referred to.

.

Says so right there that Tc is the cooler of the 2. And R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit by saying that a negative answer "implies" that we are still talking about P being net RADIATED power....also called emission and emitted power can never be negative. no matter if you put it in a box with a heading "Heat Radiation" and publish it on the internet.
There is no such thing in this universe that radiates a negative P, but there are things that absorb power and in that case we call it ABSORPTION not a "net negative radiative transfer"
In addition to that it is wrong to use the emissivity "e" of one of the 2 objects instead of the albedo "a" for this so called "net negative radiative transfer" that any sane person would call absorption.
The only case where the albedo a or emissivity e is irrelevant is for 2 ideal black bodies at T and Tc deg Kelvin...and if the author envisions that as a "typical situation" he must have got his physics diploma from the same place as Al Gore.

 

[Crick]

The emitted power of a mass that is receiving more than it is emitting is negative.

The received power of a mass that is emitting more than it is receiving is negative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T
For only 25$ even you can join the USC , the Union of Concerned "Scientists" and be a "scientist" even though you have no idea why the -Tc^4 has the letter c . What do you think the "c" stands for, if not for labeling the colder of the 2 temperatures ?
According to you (and some other yahoos) P can be negative, no problem.
Negative power/energy and such only exists in the kind of "science" used for stuff like this:

Statements like the negative power crap you post is a clear indication that you have no clue.
In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their base quantities (such as length, mass, time,)
In dimensional analysis 1 Watt is defined as mass * distance^2 * Time ^-3.
The watt (symbol: W) is a unit of power. In the International System of Units (SI) it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second,[1] and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis it is described by mass * distance squared * time to the neg.3rd power
Crick Wuwei and Toddster can demonstrate that the StB equation can be used to prove that it is possible to get a negative result for M*L^2* T^(-3) any time you want to.
Now we know how UFO`s can fly using negative energy as anti-gravity.

My God. I don't know why you are always so testy and belligerently sarcastic. You try to demonstrate your knowledge of physics, but you fail to understand what you are talking about.

SSDD quoted a particular formula that Tod posted in # 874 of this thread.

Please notice that Tc is defined as the temperature of the surroundings. The magnitude wrt the radiator is not defined. And please read the text in the last paragraph where they explain the meaning of the case where Tc>T.

You are just as bad as SSDD when it comes to huffing at people when you fail to understand the physics that is being referred to.

.

Says so right there that Tc is the cooler of the 2. And R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit by saying that a negative answer "implies" that we are still talking about P being net RADIATED power....also called emission and emitted power can never be negative. no matter if you put it in a box with a heading "Heat Radiation" and publish it on the internet.
There is no such thing in this universe that radiates a negative P, but there are things that absorb power and in that case we call it ABSORPTION not a "net negative radiative transfer"
In addition to that it is wrong to use the emissivity "e" of one of the 2 objects instead of the albedo "a" for this so called "net negative radiative transfer" that any sane person would call absorption.
The only case where the albedo a or emissivity e is irrelevant is for 2 ideal black bodies at T and Tc deg Kelvin...and if the author envisions that as a "typical situation" he must have got his physics diploma from the same place as Al Gore.

Says so right there that Tc is the cooler of the 2.

Wrong.

Says it could be hotter or cooler.

And R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit by saying that a negative answer "implies" that we are still talking about P being net RADIATED power..

It is net.

also called emission and emitted power can never be negative.

Net can't be negative? LOL!

 

[Crick]

P Bear. Are you man enough to admit your mistake?

 

[Wuwei]

In addition to that it is wrong to use the emissivity "e" of one of the 2 objects instead of the albedo "a" for this so called "net negative radiative transfer" that any sane person would call absorption.

With the SB law you only have to deal with one object -- the object simply radiates according to T⁴.

It is Kirchhoff's law that allows you to also deal with absorption. Kirchhoff formally showed that the factor for both emission and absorption are identical, so if a background is radiating at the object, you can algebraically factor out the emissivity and sigma from both emission and absorption to get the subtracted form, εσ(T₁⁴–T₂⁴).

 

[Wuwei]

R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit

All text books and scientists believe the hyperphysics site that Tod posted. When you say that the author is full of shit you are saying all physicists are full of shit. That is what SSDD continually does. Is that how you want to be known too?

 

[polarbear]

R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit

All text books and scientists believe the hyperphysics site that Tod posted. When you say that the author is full of shit you are saying all physicists are full of shit. That is what SSDD continually does. Is that how you want to be known too?

Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission" because an internet web site calling itself "Hyperphysics" says so. The internet and this forum are the only place where idiots say that the increase of deltaE of any electron in any atom was the result of a "negative emission".
Physicists like Planck, Einstein etc call that absorption because the electron absorbed a photon and call it emission when it looses deltaE later by emitting a photon. We also have absorption and emission spectral lines but no "negative emission" lines.
Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element.
Hahahaha the absorption lines are supposedly dark because they are caused by the "dark photons" of the negative radiation...
Not so strange is that the only web sites or people who yap about "negative emission" or "negative heat radiation" are the same ones who advocate AGW. and publish doomsday warnings day in day out.
You will love this "scientist" just as much as M.Mann, maybe even more:https://ijoer.com/Paper-March-2018/IJOER-MAR-2018-18.pdf
Cold Photons in Space & Hot Photons in Atmosphere: A Review
Dr Bijay Kumar Parida (MS, FRCSG
Space is dark because the photons released from sun have lost energy and became cold photons during their passage towards earth. Because photons do not have energy in space, so space is cold. When photons reach atmosphere, it hitssuspended particles and get annihilated. Thus these photons produce energy and light is seen.

 

[Sunsettommy]

R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit

All text books and scientists believe the hyperphysics site that Tod posted. When you say that the author is full of shit you are saying all physicists are full of shit. That is what SSDD continually does. Is that how you want to be known too?

Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission" because an internet web site calling itself "Hyperphysics" says so. The internet and this forum are the only place where idiots say that the increase of deltaE of any electron in any atom was the result of a "negative emission".
Physicists like Planck, Einstein etc call that absorption because the electron absorbed a photon and call it emission when it looses deltaE later by emitting a photon. We also have absorption and emission spectral lines but no "negative emission" lines.
Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element.
Hahahaha the absorption lines are supposedly dark because they are caused by the "dark photons" of the negative radiation...
Not so strange is that the only web sites or people who yap about "negative emission" or "negative heat radiation" are the same ones who advocate AGW. and publish doomsday warnings day in day out.

"As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element."

I leaned that concept in Chemistry class a few decades ago, it is 101 stuff.

 

[polarbear]

R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit

All text books and scientists believe the hyperphysics site that Tod posted. When you say that the author is full of shit you are saying all physicists are full of shit. That is what SSDD continually does. Is that how you want to be known too?

Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission" because an internet web site calling itself "Hyperphysics" says so. The internet and this forum are the only place where idiots say that the increase of deltaE of any electron in any atom was the result of a "negative emission".
Physicists like Planck, Einstein etc call that absorption because the electron absorbed a photon and call it emission when it looses deltaE later by emitting a photon. We also have absorption and emission spectral lines but no "negative emission" lines.
Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element.
Hahahaha the absorption lines are supposedly dark because they are caused by the "dark photons" of the negative radiation...
Not so strange is that the only web sites or people who yap about "negative emission" or "negative heat radiation" are the same ones who advocate AGW. and publish doomsday warnings day in day out.

"As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element."

I leaned that concept in Chemistry class a few decades ago, it is 101 stuff.

It is simple 101 stuff. But I know the reason why they cling to this weird concept calling it "negative radiation transfer", back radiation or whatever else. Of course a colder body can and does radiate towards a hotter one but it can not heat it up. The only thing that happens is that the cooling rate of the hotter one is slightly less as is correctly formulated by the Boltzmann equation. To heat it up to a higher temperature you need a higher temperature source like the sun. Every physicist knows it and so does any climatologist who gets to brag he is with NASA. The problem is to calculate accurately by how much the CO2 can slow the cooling so that you can get to the equilibrium temperature where radiation absorbed/per area and time is the same as radiation emitted up and out. They simply short circuit that by saying that according to Wien`s displacement the 15 micron CO2 absorption line equates to ~ - 80 C using the Boltzmann equation and then tell you the radiation "imbalance" for that T in Kelvin and the "global average" T.
That simpleton "solution" was an easy sell and all the simple minded people bought into this "science".
All except the skeptics that are either "Oil lobby conspirators" or "science deniers".
You are either one of those if you point out the fact that this "science" has no need to show the difference between the amount of energy absorbed by 200 ppm and double that...because no matter the 15 micron band equates to -80 C and plugging that into the StB equation as Tc and the world average as T you get the same result for any CO2 ppm and the solar output variations are also irrelevant.
That is the basis of their "science" and for those who laugh at it they have tons of line graphs with the vastly blown up T anomaly on the Y axis and the time in years on the X axis...but never any graph that shows T on the Y axis and ppm CO2 on the X-axis.

 

[Wuwei]

Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission"

You built a strawman. "Negative emission" is a phrase you made up as far as the SB equation is concerned. No source we gave you says negative emission is another name for absorption.

 

[polarbear]

Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission"

You built a strawman. "Negative emission" is a phrase you made up as far as the SB equation is concerned. No source we gave you says negative emission is another name for absorption.

Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is an emitter of positive P can do that. Maybe all these strawman scientists who you say all say so put it in these textbooks for strawman brained people who keep publishing HYPERPHYSICS for uber "scientists" like you to quote.
Wow that author calles it "Hyperphysics" and probably dresses up like Spock to look the part of a "hyper scientist."
I am still waiting for you to show me a statement from Planck or Einstein about something radiating negative P.

 

[polarbear]

Energy is either emitted or absorbed and is always a positive quantity.
You can chose your own "hyper physics" word for your hyper physics fantasy world where it can be negative. I don`t care what you call it.
"Dark photons" would be just as good. Maybe that`s how the klingons cloak their starships while cruising in hyper drive through hyper space.

 

[Wuwei]

Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
As the photons of light are absorbed by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of emission. The dark lines, absorption lines, correspond to the frequencies of the emission spectrum of the same element.

You and sunsettommy are confused. Only short wave photons - visible, or near visible - can be absorbed by electrons orbiting nuclei. In atmospheric physics the emissions at ambient temperatures are long wave radiation. Those photons don't have near enough energy to excite an orbital electron.

The long wave radiation from the earth excites vibration modes of the GHGs. I would think you would know that by now.