# No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere



## IanC (Oct 1, 2016)

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power. 

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 2, 2016)

Yes, AGW is real and the Arctic Ice is melting, as is the permafrost. The alpine glaciers are rapidly retreating, the Greenland Ice Cap is melting at a faster rate than predicted. Where the Arctic Ice is today is where in 1981 it was predicted to be near the end of this century by the alarmists. 

We shall see what kind of feedbacks we get, and shall be seeing that pretty quickly. People like you have been stating that the scientists are being too alarmist now for 36 years. And the 'alarmists', the credible ones like Dr. Hansen, have seen their predictions proven to be too conservative. Yes, I think that we shall see some damaging effects on our civilization within my lifetime. Already Swiss Re and Munich Re are saying that we are seeing them in the form of extreme weather events.


----------



## waltky (Oct 24, 2016)

CO2 levels have reached a record high this year due to El Nino...




*Greenhouse Gas Levels Breaking All Records*
_October 24, 2016 — The World Meteorological Organization reports the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere has reached a record high this year, driven in part by the powerful El Nino event, which started in 2015 and continued well into 2016._


> According to WMO, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million for the first time in 2015 and surged to new records this year.  WMO Secretary General, Petteri Taalas says this symbolic, but significant milestone bodes ill for the planet as these CO2 emissions will stay in the atmosphere for generations.  “At the moment, we are not moving in the right direction. We are actually moving in the wrong direction and this warming potential of the planet has been growing," Taalas said.
> 
> Carbon dioxide results from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activity. Meteorologists say CO2 accounts for 65 percent of the warming effect on our climate.  Two other greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide contribute about 17 percent and six percent respectively to the long-lived warming of earth’s climate.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2016)

Wow ian...ever hear of circular thinking?  Your hypothesis is put forward as proof of your hypothesis?...good one.  And look who thanks you...congratulations.


----------



## IanC (Oct 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wow ian...ever hear of circular thinking?  Your hypothesis is put forward as proof of your hypothesis?...good one.  And look who thanks you...congratulations.




You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere. 

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.



Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses...  And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.  



IanC said:


> Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.



tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...



IanC said:


> I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....



I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.
> ...




So you duck the question yet again.

You are worse than even Crick or Old Rocks. At least they actually link up to some thousands of pages long document, or 2 hour long video before asking me to search for the needle in a haystack.

You just say it's somewhere out in the internet, that I could find it if only I tried hard enough.


Obviously you don't even understand your own opinion well enough to put it down in your own words. No short simplified version to point out the main idea, nothing. 

I have put down in my own words how gravity is an integral part of energy storage, and how the potential/kinetic energy relationship affects temperature. You have not. You are like Joe Postma or Doug Cotton, notorious trolls who constantly repeat their 'sciencey' gibberish and refuse to answer or even acknowledge legitimate rebuttals. Your heroes at PSI, where you get not only your talking points but their style for evading unanswerable questions.

Until you actually say something that makes sense, and then defend it, I will continue to "'persecute' you for your illogical and self serving bullshit.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question.  how do you figure?  He gave you an answer.  It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got.  plain and simply.  Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect?  if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion?  dude, you seem to be acting desperate.  So again, you asked, *"You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere." 
*
SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect".  It was an answer.  Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you?  That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays.  If that is so, prove it?  You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading.  he is spot fking on with that comment.  So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

hahahahaha. 


jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



simple enough jc. put down the main points of "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". we shall see if it agrees with my past statements, or destroys the Greenhouse Effect. you do the work of explaining your position for a change. I am tired of having to explain both sides, just to prove my position is more solid. hop to it, chop,chop.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha.
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


The fact is you claimed SSDD didn't answer your question, and he did.  That makes you a liar.  you seem comfortable with that new title since you diverted the direction of the post.  

Oh and btw, I have explained my position.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

Earth's surface radiates about 400w , solar input is less than half of that. Where does the extra energy come from?

Simple question.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahaha.
> ...




Link me up to your explanation of your position. You keep saying that you have but it can never be found.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> So you duck the question yet again.



here ian,,,,,if you are that f'ing lazy...or to stupid to use google, by all means, here...not that it will possibly matter to someone so stupid and lazy....this is a fine place to start...

The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevance


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect".  It was an answer.  Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you?  That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.



I think that the fact that climate science..and along with them he, himself is, and has been wrong...and warmers, even luke warmers lie when you question their dogma..


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you duck the question yet again.
> ...




unfortunately the text is in a  graphic format so I can't pull out  a quote






"presumably, one could drive a heat engine with this temperature gradient, thus violating the second law"

honestly, this is your explanation of why the surface radiates 400w while only getting less than half that from the Sun? really?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect".  It was an answer.  Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you?  That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.
> ...




hahahahaha. when pressed over and over again to explain your position, you finally came up with Loschmidt's Gravito-Thermal Effect. An unrelated topic that involves a perpetual motion machine. good job SSDD


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> Earth's surface radiates about 400w , solar input is less than half of that. Where does the extra energy come from?
> 
> Simple question.


so ian, where do you get the 400 W number from?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Earth's surface radiates about 400w , solar input is less than half of that. Where does the extra energy come from?
> ...




objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate in proportion to their temperature (in Kelvins) to the fourth power. a temperature of roughly 15C (288K) radiates at roughly 400w.

as an aside, this fundemental law of nature is also a negative feedback for temperature increase, as every degree of warming needs more and more energy to sustain it.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you duck the question yet again.
> ...





hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I cannot stop laughing!!! this is SSDD's explanation! Did he think I wouldnt read it? More likely he just felt he had to put something, anything down. what an idiot.


Perhaps I am missing something SSDD. is there something more than just the G-T Effect? can you explain the relevance in more detail? so far it seems like a total blunder on your part.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

by the way, the gravito-thermal effect is simply described as....the total energy of air molecules higher up in the atmosphere is skewed more to potential energy rather than kinetic energy. this means the temperature is lower at altitude than close to the surface even though all air molecules have the same AVERAGE total energy in average.

the idea of making a heat engine based on the temperature difference between high and low is ridiculous, although it appears as if the formal proof is more difficult to produce than the commonsense dismissal of all perpetual motion machines.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

after reading some of the comments on SSDD's link, I remember trying to interest SSDD in the Pot Lid Hypothesis. it is both an exposition of the paradoxes and conundrums of atmospheric  physics, as well as a history of how certain areas have been ignored or simplified by assumption in climate models. an interesting read. but SSDD refused to, for some reason. I think only Old Rocks seemed to show any interest in it, which is somewhat bizarre.

I recommend it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water?  And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so again, where does 288K come from?  It was the question to which you responded Kelvin.  I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from.  why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The average global temperature is roughly 15C. Converting that to the Kelvin scale is 273 + 15 = 288. 

The incoming solar insulation is less than 200w, on average over the globe. Surface radiation is 400w, on average over the globe. That leaves an unexplained deficit of over 200w.

My question to you, SSDD, and others is where does the extra energy come from. I have asked this question repeatedly over the past few years, and I have gotten no logical response.

I have also repeatedly explained where and how this missing energy is obtained by the surface. 

Are you asking me to repeat myself yet again? Why would you listen this time after ignoring my answer every other time?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun.  Because I got to hear this one.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I have explained time and time again. it is YOUR turn to explain because you have rejected my answer every time in the past. 

where do YOU think the 200+ watts come from. the Sun's input is measured. the Earth's surface is measured. you can argue the numbers a few percent either way but there is NO possible way to close the deficit by blaming faulty measurements. WHERE does the extra energy come from?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Well first you have to prove 400w. Which you can't


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Do you reject the Planck curve for the Sun's radiation or only the Planck curve for the Earth? 

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

Can you make inferences from looking at the measured radiation given off by both bodies and the discrepancies from a theoretical blackbody.

Do you ever combine several ideas together and have a new idea pop into your head? I think not.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That is certainly the basis...and oddly enough ian, Graeff has demonstrated the temperature gradient in columns of air that Maxwell and Boltzman said could not happen...observed, and repeatable, in a laboratory...and it doesn't violate the second law...the giants simply misunderstood and claimed that it would violate the second law...

Hell ian, don't bother pursuing it...you have your dogma, and your failed hypothesis, and your failing models...of what use could the truth possibly be to you?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate in proportion to their temperature (in Kelvins) to the fourth power.



yep.....in a vacuum...unfortunately, the atmosphere isn't a vacuum...so the background temperature determines the amount of energy they radiate.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I cannot stop laughing!!! this is SSDD's explanation! Did he think I wouldnt read it? More likely he just felt he had to put something, anything down. what an idiot.



Clearly you didn't read what was there...nor did you follow the links...Graeff has demonstrated the temperature gradient in a column of air that maxwell and boltzman said couldn't happen...again, with the logical fallacies...is that what you are reduced to now ian?...since you can't provide any actual evidence to support your own beliefs, you must make an appeal to ridicule when faced with anything that challenges your dogma?




IanC said:


> Perhaps I am missing something SSDD. is there something more than just the G-T Effect? can you explain the relevance in more detail? so far it seems like a total blunder on your part.



it is all there ian, in the text and the links...it is clear that you are as rooted in your dogma as rocks, crick, and mammoth are in theirs...no evidence, no observations, no measurement.  I tend to favor people who can demonstrate what they believe in the real world....there are, in fact, proven through repeatable, observable, measurable, quantifiable experiment, temperature gradients in columns of air...actual proof that maxwell and boatsman were wrong when they said that columns of air would reach equilibrium...now I know that the fact that they have been demonstrably proven wrong means nothing to a dogmatist like you...but I am not rooted in dogma...I am looking for evidence....in actual science, you look for evidence that the hypothesis is wrong...you don't simply repeat it because everyone else is.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?



The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body.  Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Hold on a minute here SSDD. I asked you where the missing 200+ watts of unaccounted for energy came from. You said the G-T Effect.

I posted up your link. It said nothing about 200w, instead it talked about a heat engine driven by temperature gradient of the atmosphere. It even mentioned 'back conduction ' which you have previously mocked.

It is no answer to my question. I encourage you to fill in the gaps of logic that are obviously missing.

You say Graeff performed an experiment. Was the temperature gradient more or less than expected for the change in strength of the gravity field from bottom to top? What were the assumptions made by Maxwell regarding gravity field?

I am more than willing to discuss the gravity effects on atmospheric temperatures. But you have to put your ass on the line and explain your position in your own words, and stop expecting me to search the internet for information that will somehow lead me to your bizarre interpretation of physics.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate in proportion to their temperature (in Kelvins) to the fourth power.
> ...




So that's your newest catch phrase? "Sure...in a vacuum"

It is not the characteristics of being a vacuum that change the rate of radiation of an object, it is the amount of radiation being received through the vacuum. 

An object sitting in the vacuum only a million miles away from the Sun will still be radiating it's full power in all directions but I can assure you the side towards the Sun will be hotter than the side away from it.

What does the vacuum do, other than stop the possibility of conduction?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...you really have become quite the liar in your attempt to rationalize your dogma....like your posting up of the loschmidt article completely avoiding the relevance to jelbring and n&z...doesn't your recent rapid decent into dishonesty raise questions about why?...._I honesty thought you had more character than that...was I wrong?_


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...you really have become quite the liar in your attempt to rationalize your dogma....like your posting up of the loschmidt article completely avoiding the relevance to jelbring and n&z...doesn't your recent rapid decent into dishonesty raise questions about why?...._I honesty thought you had more character than that...was I wrong?_




Whoaaaa now. Jelbring and N&Z? Where did they come from? Are you changing your position again?

I have asked you many times in the past to explain the position of those type of guys. You always refuse and say I should just look it up if I'm interested. 

So it's not Loschmidt, it's those other guys that have the answer? So why aren't you championing their cause? Why aren't you putting up explanations of their work? Have they found the cause of the missing 200+ watts?

Let's go, post up some relevant info. I sure hope it's more substantive than your last 'explanation'.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...




Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?
> ...




Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.


----------



## DevilsAdvocator (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

DevilsAdvocator said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



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


----------



## DevilsAdvocator (Oct 26, 2016)

hey Toddster. where do YOU think the missing 200+ watts comes from? is your understanding different than mine? any small (or large) differences you'd like to discuss? 

any qualms like how Trenberth double dips latent heat/thermals?


----------



## DevilsAdvocator (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DevilsAdvocator said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

DevilsAdvocator said:


> hey Toddster. where do YOU think the missing 200+ watts comes from? is your understanding different than mine? any small (or large) differences you'd like to discuss?
> 
> any qualms like how Trenberth double dips latent heat/thermals?



The atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

DevilsAdvocator said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DevilsAdvocator said:
> ...



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

Is he correct?


----------



## DevilsAdvocator (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DevilsAdvocator said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

DevilsAdvocator said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DevilsAdvocator said:
> ...



*the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other*

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


----------



## DevilsAdvocator (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DevilsAdvocator said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




He is obviously wrong. Radiation goes in all directions, all the time, from everything. What does the temperature of the target have to do with the matter that is radiating?


----------



## DevilsAdvocator (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DevilsAdvocator said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




It doesn't matter how fast the the matter is moving because of its temperature, the photon will catch up. Atoms or molecules either absorb, reflect or transmit  photons according to their emissivity. It is because of how the electrons are bound, and the quantum states available. Why would distant objects affect emission or absorbance?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

DevilsAdvocator said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DevilsAdvocator said:
> ...


*
He is obviously wrong. Radiation goes in all directions, all the time, from everything. What does the temperature of the target have to do with the matter that is radiating?*

It's his wacky misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.
Epicycles built on epicycles, so that he can say back radiation doesn't exist.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...you really have become quite the liar in your attempt to rationalize your dogma....like your posting up of the loschmidt article completely avoiding the relevance to jelbring and n&z...doesn't your recent rapid decent into dishonesty raise questions about why?...._I honesty thought you had more character than that...was I wrong?_
> ...



Where did they come from?...clearly you didn't read the link I provided and am not going to offer any more...continue to wallow in your quasi religious dogma if you like...you seem to like it there.  But do keep in mind that their hypotheses...scratch that...theories now that the basics have been proven by experimentation predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here with a fudge factor.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...
> ...




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?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*...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...*

Of course, radiators with dimmer switches. This is why we point and laugh.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




??????

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

The first equation describes a single object. Period. The object radiates in proportion to its temperature as described by the equation. 

The second equation describes the interaction between two objects, both of which are defined by the first equation.

You don't like the first equation because it implies that the radiation is always there (and it is always there). So you substitute the first equation with the second equation but with the cooler term set to zero, an imaginary case because there is no place in the universe without some radiation.

I hope this simple explanation will clear up your misunderstanding but I doubt it.


Again....the first equation describes the radiation of an object, regardless of the background. The second equation describes the net flow between two objects.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



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)  Last section of the second page



> Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8_Wm_-2_K_-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8_Wm_-2_K_-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.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DevilsAdvocator said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




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 fucking waste of time.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8_Wm_-2_K_-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8_Wm_-2_K_-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."


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




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


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


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 (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




'it's there now' ? Fuck 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 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


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


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




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 (Oct 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DevilsAdvocator said:
> ...


_
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 (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why does the cooler surface emit toward the warmer corona?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Hoe do you know that it does?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why wouldn't it?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


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 (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



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 (Oct 27, 2016)

> 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.
> 
> ...



Now the Antarctic is melting too


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 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 (Oct 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > it was there before you posted your post.  look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.
> ...



*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 (Oct 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (Oct 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




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 (Oct 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Prove your statements, or stand as an exposed liar.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Ockham's Razor is no friend of SSDD. Nor is logic.

Every object radiates according to its temperature as per the single term S-B equation. All the time, no exceptions. 

Net flow of radiation is covered by the two term S-B equation. Much more complicated to actually use. But it is based on the radiation described by the single term equation done on each object. The act of comparing two objects does not change the two objects. Everything radiates, all the time, based on the local condition of the object at the time, not from some secondary object.

Note well, any object's radiation defined by the S-B equation will of course be changing due to energy loss over time. The definition is only valid for one set of initial conditions.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So you are ignorant, lazy, and stupid...becoming less of a surprise all the time....I provided you a clear statement from Perdue University that the first equation of the SB law deals with an object radiating into a vacuum...and since you believe you know everything, you rejected it...not my problem, but since there are plenty of places that state this OBVIOUS fact, I will provide you some more.

And by the way, you are quite wrong regarding the two term SB equation as well...it deals with any object not radiating into a vacuum...the Tc statement denotes the background...not a second object...yet another fundamental error regarding the SB law.....seems that you don't know nearly as much as you thought...

Here, from the physics department at Georgia State...

[Georgia State University]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 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [/quote]

Now back to the vacuum issue...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

And if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature
_
 I will provide reasons why these rare IR-absorbing gases are much less effective in providing back-emitted IR radiation originally from the surface which the surface can absorb than is water vapor.  I will also point out why water vapor is itself less effective in warming the surface by re-emitted IR radiation it has absorbed from surface IR emission than is usually thought to be the case by the catastrophic man-made global warming advocates.  The effect of IR radiation from the atmosphere upon the surface temperature has been generally greatly over-estimated while the size of the natural effects of the previous paragraph has been greatly underestimated._

I like when your sources disagree with your claim that back-radiation doesn't exist.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2016)

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...



*...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...*

You never explained how the hotter radiator knows the temperature of the cooler surroundings.
Or if fewer photons are emitted or just less energetic ones, as the temperatures equalize.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you duck the question yet again.
> ...


*This site can’t be reached*
*link.aip.org*’s server DNS address could not be found.

*Page not found*

*Seems that the pages with the original papers are not available, although I have found no papers previously published by the American Institute of Physics that were not available, at least in abstract form.*


----------



## IanC (Oct 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Now back to the vacuum issue...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

And if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time.[/QUOTE]


Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.

The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation. The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined. The simplest example is when one object is surrounded by the other because angle of the radiation balances out (if the inner object is spherical). The flux at the boundary would be symmetrical. Any other case would involve further calculations dependant on shapes and angles.

Calculating two spherical objects radiating towards each other would involve both the shape and flux but also the environment that these two objects are imbedded in.

The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them. 

The first S-B equation is general and easily calculated with few assumptions. The second S-B equation rapidly escalates into mind boggling complexity that demands many assumptions and estimates to get any type of answer at all.

The fact that you have presumed that the first equation is actually a special case of the second equation involving a simplification that does not exist in reality shows that you do not understand either the theoretical underpinnings of radiation and radiation transfer, or the complexities of radiation transfer in the real world.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.



As I said, if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time....so here...

Handbook of Crystal Growth



> 20.4.2.1     let us first consider an opaque body at high temperature.  The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total emitted energy from a black surface into a vacuum, is given by…….



Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement



> An energy balance is then used to determine the emissivity through the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation.  To do this, an enclosure of uniform temperature capable of holding high vacuum is used to act as a blackbody simulating radiation to deep space.



An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists



> I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum.  A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface.




An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature



> The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation applies to a surface radiating into vacuum, not into an atmosphere able to provide competing cooling processes due to air conduction, air convection, and water evaporation.




https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml



> Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation
> 
> *61*. For the following we imagine a perfectly evacuated hollow cylinder with an absolutely tight-fitting piston free to move in a vertical direction with no friction. A part of the walls of the cylinder, say the rigid bottom, should consist of a black body, whose temperature T may be regulated arbitrarily from the outside. The rest of the walls including the inner surface of the piston may be assumed as totally reflecting. Then, if the piston remains stationary and the temperature, T, constant, the radiation in the vacuum will, after a certain time, assume the character of black radiation (*Sec. 50*) uniform in all directions. The specific intensity, K, and the volume density, u, depend only on the temperature, T, and are independent of the volume, V, of the vacuum and hence of the position of the piston.



Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile



> The ratio between the temperatures of the sphere surfaces will be calculated when the spheres have reached an energetic equilibrium. Such is the case when each sphere is receiving/emitting equal total power according to the *S-B *law. Some postulates are needed:
> 
> 1    Any point on both spheres emits photons in any direction within a half sphere with the same probability.
> 
> ...




https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf



> In conclusion, we have examined radiative heat transfer inside hyperbolic metamaterials.
> 
> We have shown that the broadband divergence of the photonic density of states leads to gi- ant increase in radiative heat transfer compared to the Stefan-Boltzmann law in vacuum and in dielectric materials.







IanC said:


> The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.



Yes it does...but what you don't seem bright enough to grasp is that the ONLY place you can have a single object is in a vacuum..if you are not in a vacuum, by necessity you have an atmosphere which is then another object...and the equation switches from 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (which describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum) to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  which describes a black body (perfect or imperfect) radiating into surroundings other than a vacuum.



IanC said:


> The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.



Yeah, you keep saying that...because you apparently are not bright enough to read a clear statement from one of the top physics departments in the world and grasp the disconnect between what you say, and they say....here, let me repeat what the physics department at Georgia State University says about the second S-B equation...



			
				Georgia State University said:
			
		

> 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



COOLER SURROUNDINGS ian, not another object...unless of course, you are ready to admit that an atmosphere itself is another object...which is precisely what the S-B law states if you weren't to thick to grasp the obvious.



IanC said:


> The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined.



Yeah, about that.....let me know when the second law of thermodynamics...or any of the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to state that energy exchange is a net flow proposition...till then, don't bother to say it because not only does it mean nothing...it runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics which say nothing about net energy exchanges.



IanC said:


> The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them.



Why yes it is..and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp its meaning...what do you think about that mr wizard?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.



Just in case you need more convincing that you have a flawed understanding of this point....

Thermochemical Processes: Principles and Models

First Paragraph on page 82...can't copy and paste because it is from a physics text titled "*Thermochemical Processes: Principles and Models"
*
Model-based Process Supervision

Last paragraph on page 395...again, can't copy because it is a textbook titled "*"Model-based Process Supervision: A Bond Graph Approach"
*
And it goes on and on and on..practically every scientific text that comes up when the topic is googled states clearly that the second equation describes a radiator radiating into its cooler surroundings...and from that alone you should have been able to deduct that the first equation describes a radiator radiating into nothing...ie VACUUM....


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

Here we go again. You talk semantics and I talk physics principles.

Every particle of MATTER in the universe is attempting to achieve the lowest energy potential possible. Absolute zero and the centre of gravity.

The one term S-B equation describes how an object reduces its thermal energy by radiation caused by blackbody radiation created by molecular collisions. The complications of gravity are ignored. A simplifying assumption .

When articles use the term 'into the vacuum ' it is meant as a shorthand term to remove matter-mediated energy transfer such as conduction. A simplifying assumption.

A vacuum is the absence of matter. That is the main defining characteristic. Radiation is not matter. You could theoretically define a 'perfect vacuum ', one which contains neither matter nor radiation, but that does not exist anywhere in the universe.

Outer space is nearby devoid of matter but it does contain radiation. Does it have a temperature? No, temperature is a quality of matter but it does have a 'symtom' of temperature, namely the background radiation.

One of your links describes an experiment contained within vessel capable of a hard vacuum and kept at a constant temperature. This is a simplifying set of conditions that removes the possibility of conduction and gives emitted radiation a place to go so that it doesn't interfere with the measurements of the objects contained in the vessel. Simplifying assumption because the vessel is still returning radiation to the objects.

The one term S-B equation describes the radiation created by a single object. Period. It is a function of the excess energy contained within it, that the object is trying to release as fast as it can. 

The second, two term S-B equation describes the more complex situation where two objects are trying to get rid of their excess energy but are being thwarted by the radiation coming from the opposing object. It is further complicated by environment that the objects are enclosed in. 

A calculation can only be made for a specific area, with a specific set of initial conditions. And that calculation is only valid for a precise moment of time that the initial conditions were true.

Theoretical first principles under ideal conditions are never found in reality but they are necessary to understand and predict reality. The single term S-B equation is a theoretical first principle that describes an ideal condition. The two term S-B equation is hideously complex even with simplifying assumptions. 

You have latched on to a poorly defined term, a vacuum, and given it a meaning and characteristics far beyond its definition and reality. When you are given opposing evidence you simply change the definition.


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.
> ...




Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss. Are you just ignoring that because it is inconvenient?

How are you defining the temperature of an object? It is easier to define a single object than it is to define the object surrounding the first object, which of course is surrounded by something else. The initial object can have a single temperature but second cannot, there will always be a temperature gradient. If two stand alone objects of a single temperature each are being examined then the radiation into the area intersecting them can be calculated but the area not intersecting is derived by the environment surrounding the two objects. Etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss.*

Hehe. Poor Sid. Another of his sources said back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth was a thing.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Here we go again. You talk semantics and I talk physics principles.



No...ian...you talk bullshit...you talk unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...period...and when you are shown to be wrong...you get pissy and try unsuccessfully to prove how smart you are by spreading on even more bullshit....



IanC said:


> Every particle of MATTER in the universe is attempting to achieve the lowest energy potential possible. Absolute zero and the centre of gravity.



Right you are...which is why neither heat, nor energy (if they are indeed different things) ever move from cool to warm..such behavior would run directly contrary to the goal of every particle of matter in the universe.



IanC said:


> The one term S-B equation describes how an object reduces its thermal energy by radiation caused by blackbody radiation created by molecular collisions. The complications of gravity are ignored. A simplifying assumption .



Sorry, but you are wrong...it describes a radiator radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...nothing less...you clearly are going to continue to believe what you believe regardless of who tells you that you are wrong...and as such, will continue to be wrong on everything that follows from that basic misunderstanding.



IanC said:


> When articles use the term 'into the vacuum ' it is meant as a shorthand term to remove matter-mediated energy transfer such as conduction. A simplifying assumption.



An absolute necessity...presence of any other matter requires the alteration of the equation from 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  to  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






IanC said:


> A vacuum is the absence of matter. That is the main defining characteristic. Radiation is not matter. You could theoretically define a 'perfect vacuum ', one which contains neither matter nor radiation, but that does not exist anywhere in the universe.



Sorry that you can't seem to grasp the obvious...take your radiator out of the vacuum, and you must change the equation from 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






IanC said:


> The one term S-B equation describes the radiation created by a single object. Period. It is a function of the excess energy contained within it, that the object is trying to release as fast as it can.



And where might you find a single object other than an empty vacuum?



IanC said:


> The second, two term S-B equation describes the more complex situation where two objects are trying to get rid of their excess energy but are being thwarted by the radiation coming from the opposing object. It is further complicated by environment that the objects are enclosed in.



Sorry, repeating bullshit over and over will never make it truth...alas ian, you are dead wrong...you have been shown to be wrong...you persist in your ignorance and therefore make yourself wrong on everything that derives from your fundamental misunderstanding...unfortunate, but true.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...
> ...



Ask S-B...they wrote the physical law...which goes something like this when the radiator is not in a vacuum....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything..it simply obeys the laws of physics as every observation ever made bears out...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And oddly enough, they can't produce a measurement of it at ambient temperature either...tough to measure something that is only an ad hoc product of a mathematical model.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything*

It needs to know when it should stop emitting. How does it know?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As I said...ask S-B...while you are at it, go find out the fundamental mechanism that drives gravity since you feel that one must be able to describe a fundamental mechanism in order for a thing to be.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You claimed matter above 0K can stop emitting. Nothing in S-B makes that claim.

*go find out the fundamental mechanism that drives gravity*

Let's clear up your confusion here, first.

Why does the cooler surface of the Sun emit towards the much hotter corona?


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again. You talk semantics and I talk physics principles.
> ...




Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time. 

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle the case of an object above Earth's atmosphere? Pretty close to a vacuum up there. But in one direction there is radiation coming from the Sun, from the Earth in a different direction, the Cosmic Background Radiation in many other directions. Does space have a temperature? By what definition? What would you input into the two term S-B equation? 

As usual, your unjustified assumptions lead you into a paradox.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.



Sorry that you seem to be unable to read...and very sorry that you fail to grasp that the only place you can have radiation coming from a single source is in an empty vacuum.  Even when shown multiple credible sources stating that the first equation refers to a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can't accept it because you can't conceive of the reality that you have misunderstood the very basics of the S-B law.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.
> ...




I can't help but notice that you ducked my direct question again.

What is your definition of a vacuum then? Typically it means the absence of matter. Is it now your contention that it also means absence of radiation as well? Where could this special type of vacuum be found? Certainly not in our universe. So where then?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I answered your question...it is unfortunate that your dogma has so thoroughly blinded you...vacuum doesn't mean an absence of radiation...and I never suggested any such thing...either deliberate dishonesty on your part or stupidity...you say which...a vacuum is, however, the only place that you might find a single object radiating...which is what I have been saying, but you are apparently to dense to understand.  The presence of any other object radiating...including gas requires the second S-B equation...the only place the first is applicable is in a vacuum where no other object, including a gas, exists...and therefore doesn't demand that the second form of the equation be used.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

I think we are basically talking about the same thing. An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account. But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.



Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?



IanC said:


> I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.



Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...



IanC said:


> But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.



If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.
> ...




Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '.  Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




It is not a matter of changing definitions...it is a matter of coming to see just how terribly flawed your basic understanding of the S-B law is.....Lets get even more basic...tell me, do you believe that the black body described by the S-B equation actually exists?....or the place where it is completely alone and therefore radiates according to its temperature?...You seem to believe that all other mathematical constructs actually exist...like back radiation, so do you believe that S-B's theoretical black body actually exists?...and the perfect vacuum he placed it in?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He is at last coming to realize that he has been wrong all along and is just being pissy now...I am wondering if he thinks the perfect black body described in the Stefan Boltzman equations actually exists...and if he also believes the perfect vacuum that S-B placed it in also actually exists....he apparently thinks all mathematical constructs are real...like back radiation, etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*he apparently thinks all mathematical constructs are real...like back radiation, etc.*

_Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "_


----------



## IanC (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.

I wonder if we can get him to take the next step.

The first, single term S-B equation describes the radiation from a single object. It is proportional to the object's temperature, emissivity and surface area. No more, no less, a single variable.

This single variable is a stand alone product. It is not a simplification of the more complex two term S-B equation that describes net radiation exchanged between two objects , under the special case of a perfect vacuum that is also devoid of radiation, which of course does not exist in our universe. 

In fact, the two term S-B equation does not actually work for a perfect vacuum because there is no second object (matter) with a temperature (temperature is a characteristic of matter). But that is splitting hairs.

What is the two term S-B equation actually used for? Comparing two objects made of matter, with their individual amounts of radiation calculated by the one term S-B equation. The environment is assumed to be a vacuum (to remove conduction), and the background radiation is ignored because it affects both objects equally. 

The radiation exchange between the two objects depends on the areas intersecting the objects, the angles of intersection and the emissivity.

There are two main topological variants of comparison. Either one object encloses the other object, or it doesn't... I think I will stop here for now.

In summation, the first S-B equation describes the amount of radiation produced by an object, proportional to its temperature. It is not being compared to anything else, a stand alone variable. The second S-B equation actually compares the radiation exchange between two objects and rapidly escalates into complex calculations that require simplifying assumptions to get any usable information at all.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.



Your eyes must surely be brown....how you lie to yourself.



IanC said:


> The first, single term S-B equation describes the radiation from a single object. It is proportional to the object's temperature, emissivity and surface area. No more, no less, a single variable.



Brown eyes and particularly stupid....if the object is in the presence of any matter, whatsoever,  the applicable equation is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  The only place the object can not be in the presence of anything to alter P is in a perfect vacuum..... how stupid to quibble over the obvious.



IanC said:


> This single variable is a stand alone product.



Of course...in a vacuum....no where else  add the presence of any matter whatsoever and you must, by definition, switch to the second equation.  And there is no net energy exchange...all energy exchanges are gross one way propositions.




IanC said:


> In fact, the two term S-B equation does not actually work for a perfect vacuum because there is no second object (matter) with a temperature (temperature is a characteristic of matter). But that is splitting hairs.



Idiot...of course it doesn't work in a vacuum because it describes a radiator in the presence of other matter....you really don't get it do you?



IanC said:


> What is the two term S-B equation actually used for? Comparing two objects made of matter, with their individual amounts of radiation calculated by the one term S-B equation. The environment is assumed to be a vacuum (to remove conduction), and the background radiation is ignored because it affects both objects equally.



Pure bullshit...if that is your understanding, then you grasp the topic even less than I originally thought.


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions. 

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.
> 
> Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.
> 
> ...


*
Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick*

You misspelled the underlined word.

I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.



Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.



IanC said:


> Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.



Not my insistence...simply the way it is.



IanC said:


> I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.



Both terms are incredibly simple...  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 that of its surroundings.....



IanC said:


> The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.



Do S&B know about this breakthrough?  The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.



IanC said:


> The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.



You jut get goofier and goofier all the time.  The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.



IanC said:


> I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.



I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.



IanC said:


> The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.



And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..



IanC said:


> Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.



Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind.  Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction.  I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe.  I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law.  Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?






I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.







Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott.  His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation.  I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.  

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.   

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson.  He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph 

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi, 
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K). 
Cheers! 
Eric 

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth.  Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick*
> 
> You misspelled the underlined word.
> ...



Ignorant, if it applied (which it doesn't) can be remedied...stupid...which applies to you can't.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.
> ...



What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours?  We have always insisted the issue was net transfer.  Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question.  "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?"  I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?


----------



## IanC (Nov 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.
> ...




??????

your own expert witness says that a vacuum is not necessary!






  . this is your favourite version of the S-B law.  so what happens when the emisivity constant for the two objects differ? then the equation must be expanded. P = kTw^4 - kTc^4. one term for each object, the power being the difference between the two terms, the direction of flow dependent on whether the number is positive or negative.






 . this equation has one term and describes one object, power from a defined area (two dimensional, meter squared)






  .  this equatio has two terms for two objects. it describes the net movement of energy between two objects, from one object to another object through three dimensional space, if the objects are imbedded in an environment. if the second object IS the environment then no vacuum exists. Choose your poison, you are wrong either way.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> ??????
> 
> your own expert witness says that a vacuum is not necessary!



How blind are you ian...vacuum is not necessary if you happen to put the radiator into a place where the temperature is 0 degrees K....Where might that be?  But you believe what you want...hell, write a paper...point out that S-B's ideal black body was a two dimensional object radiating in only two dimensions....clearly you would rather make an abject fool out of yourself rather than admit that you were wrong at the fundamental level on the S-B law.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?



Do you think that supports SSDD's nonsensical contention?


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ??????
> ...



This looks to be one of those cases where someone accuses others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing.  You're the fool here SID.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Sorry crick...the adults were talking...did you say something?


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.
> ...




Perhaps we are getting muddled in our expectations of what the S-B equations are measuring.

You now seem to be saying that it is only useful for a single object embedded in an environment. The first equation being simplified by making the environment 0K, vacuum or not.

In the expanded second equation, the environment is given a single temperature. Is this realistic? More importantly, is it useful? 

A satellite above Earth's atmosphere is sitting in a near perfect vacuum but depending on the direction it is receiving either Cosmic Background Radiation, earth radiation or solar radiation. What is the temperature to be inserted into the equation?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?
> ...


Nice deflection. but doesn't answer my question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*Ignorant, if it applied (which it doesn't) can be remedied*

Many have tried and tried, but you're still ignorant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?*

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


so you won't answer, go figure.  When something like this throws your magic to its knees.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I will answer, right after you do.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



SSDD says there is no IR in the fridge or freezer, unless you put something warmer or cooler in it.

He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




He did answer, you moron. You're just too stupid to realize it.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why I asked first.  you answer first bubba.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ugh, nope.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Okay. I'll give estimates. The freezer is radiating 300w, the fridge is radiating 350w, the room temp beer is radiating 400w.

The beer loses 100w to the freezer (400w out and 300w in), or 50w to the fridge (400w out and 350w in). It cools off twice as fast in the freezer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Okay, the beer cools faster in the freezer.


What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.



What you don't seem to grasp is that neither the laws of thermodynamics, nor the SB laws mention anything at all about net energy flows...net is a term based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and yet, you seem to believe that they are fact...why is that ian, considering every observation ever made suggests the contrary?


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2016)

Th-Tc is NET, fool.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Th-Tc is NET, fool.




I am afraid that you are the fool crick...any X-Y equation is a gross change....additional terms are required to describe net...the more you talk, the more clear it becomes that you are a f'ing liar when you claim to be an engineer...hell, even a custodial engineer knows that X-Y describes a gross change...not net.


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2016)

If you were hoping to baffle someone with your bullshit, you failed.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you were hoping to baffle someone with your bullshit, you failed.



You never know when to stop do you?...that is part and parcel of being stupid.

7-5=2   Now mr wizard, tell us how that describes a "net" change rather than a "gross" change.

Just to be sure that you actually know what the terms gross and net mean (which is questionable after your claim that Th-Tc represented a net change) allow me to give you a general definition of the term.

Gross - The term gross refers to the total amount gained or lost as a result of some activity.

Net - Net refers to the gross amount minus deductions.

You are a fan of wind and solar so perhaps you will grasp an example that uses those terms...

Suppose you have a solar panel on top of your house...Net metering measures how much energy you take from the grid as well as how much energy your solar system puts back in and charges or pays you accordingly (depending on whether you have used more or less energy that your panels generated).  Clearly you can't perform that calculation with a two term equation... X amount of Kw shown on your power meter at the beginning of the month....Y amount of energy shown on your power meter at the end of the month....minus the amount of energy provided by your solar panel = the net power you took from the grid.......net power usage..

Gross power use however only deals with the amount of power you draw from the grid...X amount of Kw shown on your meter at the beginning of the month....amount of Kw shown on your power meter at the end of the month....gross power usage.



That being the case, a two term problem such as P=( X-Y) can only represent a gross change.  In order to describe net mathematically, one must have additional terms...ie P=(X-Y)-Z

But I am always interested in how people's minds work...it gives insight into what makes them what they are...so by all means, proceed....tell us how a two term equation like P=(X-Y) describes a net change rather than a gross change.


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature. 

If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.

You now have two objects with two individual values. If you want to find out what the net amount of radiation is being transferred between the two objects you have to define the volume of space between the two objects, define the areas of the two objects that are radiating, calculate the intersecting radiation from one area to the other after going through the volume of space, and finally subtract the amounts going in opposite directions to give a final net amount.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.
> 
> the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.
> 
> ...


So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how *cold *the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is *increasing *by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature  increase is they attribute to it *really is.*
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also *prevents *IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
 Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C *slower *from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it


----------



## Crick (Nov 11, 2016)

1) The temperature of the moon varies from a high of 100K (-200C, -300F) to 390K (120C, 240F).  It does so over the 28 day cycle of its rotation around the Earth. The Moon is roughly the shade of worn asphalt and, like a road surface on a hot summer day, heats up.  14 days of continuous sunlight will make things hot.  And then when the sun goes down, the dark surface becomes an effective radiator.  With no atmosphere to insulate it and nothing but the distant stars to warm it, it loses that heat rapidly and is quickly, extremely cold.

2) You are correct that the absorption of IR by GHGs prevents some incoming IR from ever reaching the surface but the net effect of increasing GHGs is warming.  If this were not the case, the Earth would be even colder than had it no atmosphere. The Greenhouse effect acts by slowing the escape of IR from the atmosphere and thus raising the planet's equilibrium temperature. Increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere slows IR escape and further raises the equilibrium temperature.


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.
> ...




how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
  "The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


No the moon does not have the same solar input  of the earth. Our atmosphere keeps us cool


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




you are correct. because of the size difference between the moon and the earth, the moon loses more solar input when in the shadow of the earth than the earth loses when in the shadow of the moon. actually this is just a first guess approximation, if anyone wants to prove me wrong go for it.

the atmosphere moderated the temperature swings. while the earth doesnt get as warm as it could, or as cold as it could, the average temperature is warmer with an atmosphere, and warmer still with a GHG atmosphere.


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







No, it's not because of the size difference per se, it's because we have an atmosphere.  The moon is too small (the only size factor) to retain anything other than the faintest of surface boundary/exoatmospheres.


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I welcome your input on this topic. are you arguing that the solar input to the moon is not the same as the solar input to the earth? are you arguing that the earth is not warmer than the moon, on average? are you arguing that an atmosphere is the reason for moderated temps?

I dont understand why you started your post with "No". where are we disagreeing?


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







No, it's the same.  The Earths atmosphere is a blanket.  It prevents energy from reaching the surface, and slows the energy that escapes back to space.  I said the size of the moon as regards its radiation of energy is immaterial.  It lacks an atmosphere.  That is why the surface experiences wide temperature swings.  It happens on all the moons and planets that lack a dense atmosphere.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


First thank you for asking how I am doing. In my opinion you are a sincere person so I`ll give you a sincere answer to your sincere question. I am not doing so good since cancer ripped my wife from me recently. We were married for almost 43 years and it is hard to deal with this reality, but thanks again for your concern.
Reading stuff like the stuff you post here is one of the things I prefer to use to deal with the loss of my wife. First off it was a bit inappropriate of me demanding the kind of detailed lunar data from you which probably does not even exist...and that is a pity.
It would be interesting to see T increments per time through the first half of a lunar day and not just an overall average temperature for the entire cycle and surface.
It would also be better if these measurements would be done so that all quantities are known, by using a specific mass with well defined specific properties.
The average lunar temperature does not lend itself to come to precise conclusions considering that the surface is peppered with craters that remain dark.
NASA says just 2 meters below the lunar surface it`s a constant -30 to -40 C so in your radiation balance example we are looking at something which does not just radiate freely but is also refrigerated from below.
To answer your question as to what another example that could be used might be I would say that if you could find temperature versus time of day data collected on the kind of mountain tops where celestial telescopes are. I would be surprised if none of these sites collected detailed temperature, solar radiation and barometric pressure data.
Sure the *molar* GHG ppm are the same as the ones at lower altitude but the* actual *ppm GHG (mass/volume) is lower at a lower barometric pressure.
That would be interesting to see how hot a near black body say a 1m^2 steel plate covered with a thin layer of black soot gets compared to another identical one which is located at a lower altitude and consequently higher GHG partial pressure and higher mass/volume ppm GHG. In my opinion that would yield more useful results than trying to make a case for man made global warming with a coke bottle filled with CO2.
You should think that after all this time and money spent on climate change that there would have been at least some lab tests which are a bit more realistic than CO2 in a glass jar, or how it all started out in a glass greenhouse with elevated CO2 concentrations.l
So if you or anybody else reading your thread could find a data set similar to the one I think would be more realistic that would be really interesting


----------



## westwall (Nov 12, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







I am sorry to hear of your loss polarbear.


----------



## IanC (Nov 12, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




That is truly horrible news. My deepest sympathy and condolences go out to you and your family. I selfishly pray that I pass before my wife because I don't know if I would have the strength or desire to carry on without her. I know that you have children and grandchildren. Come back strong for them.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Sorry to hear that about your wife.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I am addressing this to you and all the other ones who expressed their condolences here.
You said you pray that you pass before your wife does and that is exactly what I did. 2 years ago I was in the ICU and they called in the entire family and told them that I won`t make it. I remember seeing my wife sitting there with the 3 great grand children which were and still are in my care...and told myself that I can`t just leave them like that. For some strange reason that the medical community here still studies I recovered from a total kidney failure which is pretty well unheard of. Without dialysis or transplant etc. So now they ( MD`s from all over) still study my case and to this date draw blood samples twice a month in order to understand how this was possible. So maybe there was another reason why things did not go my way when I always prayed that I go before my wife goes before all this happened. I am getting fed up with all these tests but volunteered to keep cooperating with the study they are doing on me. I am 71 years old and now they tell me I have the vital signs of a teenager and I don`t know what to believe any more with that I don`t just mean the science but also spiritually. I am not exactly pastor material and only subscribe to religion on a moral basis to guide my actions.
Well when my time is up I guess I`ll find out if the clergy was right or the science, or maybe both.
But before that happens I sure would like to know if and how much we are responsible for climate change.
At this point I still side with Herr Doktor Heinz Hug: The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
and wish I still had access to the kind of instrumentation and facilities when I was much younger, but then none of this was an issue. But it`s pretty amazing what you can see just by pointing a simple  IR gun into a blue hole of the sky, at a cloud and then compute the T reading to watts/m^2.
I don`t have all these readings I took in front of me but a typical one during a hot summer day in Manitoba was around -30C for blue sky and -10 when aiming at a cloud estimated at ~ 2000 ft AGL.
Which computes to 198 and  271 watts/m^ respectively. I`m not sure which is the official one but here:
ATM S 211 - Notes
They say it`s 240 watts per m^2
The only time I saw anything near that was if I aimed my IR gun at low altitude clouds which contain a heck of a lot of moisture which in turn dwarfs what CO2 absorbs and re-radiates.
That leaves me with not quite 200 w/m^2 when clouds are not part of the equation and just the relative humidity which in Manitoba (at Lat 48.5 deg) for the most part is in the 80% region on a sunny day and the current ppm CO2.
So my argument is that without the water vapor and /or cloud I can`t get anywhere near 240 watts/m^2 back radiation just north of the US/Canada border.
I wish one of you guys reading this and is living in the southern US states would buy an IR gun. A good does not cost  more than 50$...and point it at the sky to see what kind of readings you get.
I suspect it will be almost the same as what I can see here.


----------



## IanC (Nov 12, 2016)

handheld IR guns intentionally restrict the range of IR measured to the same bands of IR that let surface radiation freely escape to space. the radiation they measure is produced BY the atmosphere. if the IR gun was using bands that captured CO2 and H2O specific emissions then they would be blinded nearby radiation, unable to 'see' the radiation beyond a few dozen meters.

if the restricted range of 8-13 microns is already showing ~ 200w, why do you doubt that the whole range is not 300w or more?


----------



## IanC (Nov 12, 2016)

I have done a piss poor job of explaining my point. let's try again.

IR guns measure the total radiation in any direction that they are pointed in. they use the IR band that freely moves through the atmosphere, it does not get absorbed but it does get created by the atmosphere via molecular collisions proportional to temperature. pointed upwards it measures the radiation created at all levels. these levels have a temperature gradient caused by lapse rate.
total radiation = radiation(T) + radiation(T-1) +radiation(T-2) +...... = average temperature of the whole vertical column

if you want to measure the ambient temperature at the surface you point the gun sideways, through the warmer atmosphere close to the ground.
total radiation = radiation (T) + radiation(T) +radiation(T).... = average temperature of the whole horizontal column

both the surface and the atmosphere produce IR that is capable of escaping through the 'atmospheric window' but because the direction of radiation is random, some of this IR produced by the atmosphere returns to the surface. THIS IS NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. but it is one of the ways that the stored solar input energy contained in the atmosphere is partially returned to the surface, raising temps. all atmospheres do this, whether they contain GHGs or not.


----------



## IanC (Nov 13, 2016)

GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.

roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?

when a molecule absorbs a photon it increases its potential energy, but we know that potential and kinetic energy of the atmosphere is freely transferable by collisions. therefore adding potential energy will result in increased kinetic energy (temperature) as well.

the equipartition theorum states that for a substance at a consistent temperature the emission will equal the absorption, basically a restatement of emissivity. this is where the warmers make their claim that CO2 absorbs, then emits in a random direction, which means roughly half returns to the surface. this is incorrect because the atmosphere cools with height because of gravity and the distribution of potential and kinetic energies. (I am ignoring water vapour contribution to lapse rate per above)

every slab of the atmosphere contains some excited CO2 (potential energy), from radiation coming both from above and below. it continues to hold onto this energy until the concentration of CO2 is so thin that emitted photons are more likely to escape to space rather than encounter another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. the amount of CO2 specific radiation lost to space is a small fraction of the amount of CO2 specific radiation put into the atmosphere by the surface. the difference is used to add to the total energy of the atmosphere which both warms the air (kinetic) and increases the height of the atmosphere (potential).

in the comment above we saw the atmospheric window radiation was produced by both the surface and the atmosphere but only warmed the surface. now we have a different type of radiation that warms both the surface and the atmosphere (not directly because the net flow is outward, yada yada yada). if CO2 was not present then the 15 micron IR would be part of the atmospheric window and lost directly to space rather than be captured by the atmosphere. more direct energy loss would result in lower temps for both the atmosphere and the surface. THIS is the greenhouse effect.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.
> 
> roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?
> 
> ...


Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.
> 
> roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?
> 
> ...


IanC I don`t think that whoever is reading your thread disputes Beer`s law. The problems start when AGW proponents assign values which aren`t actually measured but calculated or closer to the truth are estimated. You can`t just plug in Beer`s or Schroedinger`s laws into the 15  μm wavelength region and plot an absorption curve with it then go on and "calculate" an energy budget for the entire planet. Look again at the difference between the numbers when you actually measure what happens in the 15 μm absorption band with CO2 and if you just make all the assumptions that any material like CO2 strictly conforms with these assumptions:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Fig. 1 shows the unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm band for 357 ppm CO2 and 2.6% H2O



If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2. This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.
> ...


It does !


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.



Says the guy who has adopted the phrase smart photons from rocks.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours?  We have always insisted the issue was net transfer.  Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question.  "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?"  I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.



Of course it doesn't...the second law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool areas to warm.  I never cease to find it interesting that you guys don't get that...and there is nothing whatsoever in any of the laws of thermodynamics regarding net energy flows...all the laws of thermodynamics describe gross energy movement...of course I wouldn't expect you to get that since you believe that a statement like 7-3=4 is a statement of net change rather than gross change.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD says there is no IR in the fridge or freezer, unless you put something warmer or cooler in it.



You know that complaint you have been making about crick mischaracterizing what you say, and then responding to that distortion of your comment...perfect example here of you doing precisely the same thing...only you do it far more often than crick ever did....Of course there is Ir in the fridge...it only moves spontaneously to cooler areas though...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4)



IanC said:


> He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.



You don't quite grasp that "net" is an ad hoc product of a mathematica model...never observed, and never tested...and the laws of thermodynamics say nothing about net energy movement...they say that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.
> 
> If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.



Sorry ian...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4) is a gross term...you need another term to describe net....P=(T_ˆ4 - Tcˆ4) is no different from 4=(7-3) in so far as there description of changes....  which describes a gross change...you need another term in there if you want to show a net change...and throwing in the distributive property won't make a net change happen in reality...that is just bad math...._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours?  We have always insisted the issue was net transfer.  Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question.  "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?"  I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.
> ...


*
the second law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool areas to warm.*

I've looked at the 2nd Law and don't remember it mentioning photons.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.
> ...




it does. who told you it didn't?


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.
> ...




I disagree with many of the IPCC's so called facts and figures. what I am arguing here is the existence of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.
> ...




really? Old Rocks originated that? huh

I disagreed with your vision of photons etc right from the beginning. I invoked Maxwell's Daemon but that probably didnt resonate with many people.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Doesn't really matter...either is logical fallacy since you can show no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of your belief...


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.
> ...




there is no way to 'simplify' or 'cancel out' radiation. radiation is created by matter, travels in a straight line until it is absorbed by different matter. while it is moving from point A to point B nothing affects it (gravity and expansion of space make no difference in Earth's frame of reference).


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So you claim....

And it only moves spontaneously in the direction of warm to cool...any other claim is based on nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....pardon me if I stick with reality and actual observations.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD says there is no IR in the fridge or freezer, unless you put something warmer or cooler in it.
> ...




this is not even close to crick misquoting me. we have discussed this time and time again.

physics describes the movement of energy by radiation photons, which results in heat transfer from warm to cool as a net result, proven by statistical methods. energy in the form of photons is not restricted in any way, and indeed goes in both (all) directions.

whenever you have been trapped in logical inconsistency you either run away or make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims. like 'photons aren't real', 'quantum mechanics is nothing but a placeholder', etc. 

you proudly proclaim that objects stop radiating if they are near warmer objects. but you have no explanation, no mechanism at work, and you refuse to even acknowledge the effect on entropy by this bizarre personal version of physics. with you it is the actual verbal description of thermodynamic laws that count, not the idea behind them. you confuse the term 'energy' with the term 'heat'. and then point to instances where the terms have been ambiguously used in a general description somewhere to 'prove' your case.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




hahahaha. Ok, start putting up the actual observations. I think you will find reality is not so cut and dried as you present it.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so, any reference from you on back radiation?   I mean you asked a question and I answered it.  you never responded.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




hahahahaha. you are sooooooo retarded. 

what is this special question that you think I have ducked? 

repeat it, define the context, explain how you think the question and answer are germaine to the topic.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


funny stuff.  go read the question yourself duck dynasty.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

> Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?


  -answered



> Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?


  -answered



> So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?


  -answered, though not specifically directed at you. a 'perfect' vacuum is one that not only contains no matter, but is also devoid of radiation as well. your definition may differ.



> ok, where does the 288k come from?
> 
> Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.


    -answered



> so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?
> 
> And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?


  -answered



> well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.


  -answered



> Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, *"You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere." *
> 
> SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.
> 
> And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.


  -answered. you guys claimed the Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect answered _my _question about the missing 200+ watts. when I actually posted it up for all to see, you guys said 'never mind'.

did I miss something on this thread? I answered the questions directed at me, and some others to boot.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> > Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?
> 
> 
> -answered
> ...


and here I thought you did have some smarts.  guess not.  it's ok, jc don't need to play your game.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?
> ...



jc was playing a game? LOL!


----------



## polarbear (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I know that's what you are doing here and I remember some (pretty good!!!)  stuff you posted here a few years ago especially the flaws you found in many of the proxy data.
When it gets to the greenhouse gas effect it gets a bit more complicated than the way it`s explained in general terms by climatologists. Let`s give the part that troubles SSDD some thought. He says in essence that heat can`t be transferred from a colder body to a warmer one and then gets stuck in a corner when someone asks him what happens to the energy the colder body radiates towards the warmer one.
The correct answer to that is quite a bit more complicated because a.) we are not dealing with a black body when applying that set of laws to the earth's surface and b.) with CO2 as a part of the GHG`s that affect the atmospheric window we are not dealing with a substance that adheres to the Beer-Lambert law to the extent the IPCC would have it. Which is the part Heinz Hug also disputes and went on to show that he measured that it is only 1/80 th of what the IPCC claims. That was no surprise to Dr.H.Hug or anyone who ever actually did any serious spectral analysis. In addition to that consider this:
Infrared window - Wikipedia
The window radiation and the non-window radiation from the land-sea surface are not defined in the terms that are necessary for the application of the Beer-Lambert Law. It would therefore be a logical and conceptual error to try to apply the Beer-Lambert Law either to window or non-window radiation considered separately.
The reason for this is that* the window and non-window radiation have already been conditioned by the Beer-Lambert Law and the law cannot validly be re-applied to its own products. Logically, the Beer-Lambert Law applies to radiation of which the origin is known but the destination is unknown.* *Such is not the case for window and non-window radiation*. Logically, it is part of the definition of window radiation that its destination is known, namely that it is destined to go to space, and likewise, by definition the destination of non-window radiation is known to be entire absorption by the atmosphere. Thus it makes sense to state the precise spectral distribution and spatial, especially altitudinal, distribution of locations of absorption of non-window radiation in the atmosphere. But none of those locations can be beyond the atmosphere; by definition, non-window radiation has zero probability of escaping absorption by the atmosphere; all of the locations of absorption are within the atmosphere. Radiation that can be described by the Beer-Lambert Law can partly escape absorption by the medium of interest; the law tells just how much that part is. This is a deep conceptual point that distinguishes the kinetic description of window and non-window radiation from the kinetic description of the kind of radiation that is covered by the Beer-Lambert Law.
Non-window radiation is by definition absorbed by the atmosphere, and its energy is thereby transduced into kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules. That kinetic energy is then transferred according to the usual dynamics of atmospheric energy transfer.
These kinetic principles for window and non-window radiation arise in the light of the definition of the atmospheric window as a dynamic property of the whole atmosphere, logically distinct from the electromagnetic spectral window


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> hahahaha. Ok, start putting up the actual observations. I think you will find reality is not so cut and dried as you present it.



Geez ian, how dense are you...try actually observing that if you want to ACTUALLY measure radiation in the bands of the so called greenhouse gasses moving from the atmosphere to the surface, the instrument must be cooled to something like -80F...then you aren't measuring IR in those bands moving from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth..you are measuring IR moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument at ambient temperature right next to it and it won't be measuring any such radiation...


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. Ok, start putting up the actual observations. I think you will find reality is not so cut and dried as you present it.
> ...




why are you not putting up evidence?

you keep saying every observation, etc,etc,etc supports your position. start making your case. the time is long past that we are going to take your word for anything. as well, just about every link that you have presented so far either disagrees with your premise, is completely off topic, or is a blog opinion piece.

first off, show us half a dozen instruments that need to be cooled to -80F. link up to the documentation that says the cooling is necessary for the method to work rather than just an improvement to lower the time to make a reading or to increase the sensitivity by blocking out background noise from waste heat contamination.

you keep bringing up -80F. what is the method to reach this temperature? what is the cutoff of the IR bands that would require even more cooling?



it should be easy for you to post pictures of these instruments, and the working environment. please cut and paste relevant sections of the documentation instead of just dropping a link.

it's not that hard. I know I did it to support my position.


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




hahahaha. I have a hard enough time trying to get the very basics across here. I think you are adding an unnecessary level of complexity that will be more confusing than helpful.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. Ok, start putting up the actual observations. I think you will find reality is not so cut and dried as you present it.
> ...



*you are measuring IR moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...*

And the thing that tells the atmosphere when it can begin emitting downward is??????
And which real scientist has explained this switch?  Oh, right, no scientist, just you.

*set an instrument at ambient temperature right next to it and it won't be measuring any such radiation...*

And that means the radiation isn't there? DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> why are you not putting up evidence?



The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually  measure radiation are cooled?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> hahahaha. I have a hard enough time trying to get the very basics across here. I think you are adding an unnecessary level of complexity that will be more confusing than helpful.



You don't have a grasp of the basics ian...you have a terribly flawed understanding of the basics...which is why you have been duped into thinking that CO2 has any effect at all on temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Nov 15, 2016)

And all the world's PhD scientists?  Do they have all have a terribly flawed understanding of the basics?  Occam's razor and our own understanding of physics (courtesy of an accredited educational system) says it is many tens of thousands times more likely that it is you with the shortcoming SID.


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > why are you not putting up evidence?
> ...




what's the matter SSDD? are you tired of looking foolish whenever you actually _try _to provide evidence?

you kept making the same nonsense statement (per your above quote) until myself and others finally provided evidence, lots of evidence, that you were wrong. now you have crawled back into your corner like a whipped dog, snarling and snapping, with no fight left in you.

come back when you have more than a fevered rant from a twisted imagination.


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. I have a hard enough time trying to get the very basics across here. I think you are adding an unnecessary level of complexity that will be more confusing than helpful.
> ...




more feeble growls from the safety of your corner. what a mangy cur you have turned into. are you rabid, or is it just a case of distemper?

put up your evidence, or stay in your corner covered in your own filth.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?


My gosh are still ranting your misunderstanding of thermodynamics? You still believe that emitted thermal radiation cannot be transmitted between any two objects at any temperature. Read a book.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> what's the matter SSDD? are you tired of looking foolish whenever you actually _try _to provide evidence?



Wow ian...you really are descending into dishonesty aren't you?....now you want me to provide evidence that there is no evidence to support your beliefs?....

The fact that I have pointed out that every bit of so called evidence of back radiation that you have posted has either been made with an instrument that was only measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile, or has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is the evidence...you want to prove your belief...then lets see measurements of back radiation with an instrument that actually measures radiation in specific bands which has not been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?
> ...



I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.


----------



## Crick (Nov 16, 2016)

How is it that given two options:
1) Matter is aware of its surroundings, is able to control its emissions with infinite precision and rountinely violates special relativity
2) All matter radiates all the time in all directions with a spectrum and intensity dependent on its absolute temperature

both of which ideas result in the same NET transfer of energy, you choose option 1?

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy.  Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.


----------



## Crick (Nov 16, 2016)

God are you stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy.  Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.



*Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction
*
_Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech._
_http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html_
_ "[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
_
_http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity_
_ Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” 
_
_https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium_
_ In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux
_
_Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events_
_ One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.
_
_What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD_
_ Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
_
_http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm_
_ Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914._
_http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf_
_ Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

In Support of the A in AGW_


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > what's the matter SSDD? are you tired of looking foolish whenever you actually _try _to provide evidence?
> ...




quit ducking the issue. you have claimed, dozens of times, that radiation from the atmosphere can only be measured by cooled instruments. show us these instruments. show us the documentation that states cooling is necessary for the radiation to exist  rather than just to separate the signal from background noise.

so far you have just been talking out of your ass, making shit up. start providing evidence.

you keep saying every observation ever made supports your position, so start producing some observations.


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




still hiding behind generalized statements meant for macroscopic observations? and implied definitions that were not meant for the specific events we are considering.

find a link that states molecular emission of photons is controlled by the temperature of distant targets. while you are at it, show that the individual molecular targets can be given a specific energy level according to the group's average.

your twisted version of physics breaks down in so many ways that it is hard to keep track of them all. and you duck every criticism, refusing to defend your position.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I did...found this quote which settled the issue.
> 
> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.



There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics. Which ones of the following statements from universities or textbooks do you disagree with?

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_4.htm
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

Heat engines and the second law
The second law states that heat flows naturally from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, but that it will not flow naturally the other way.

Refrigerators
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat will spontaneously always flow from a hot region to a cold region. By itself it never flows the other way, but can be made to do so under the influence of an external agency.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Heat flows spontaneously from a hot body ot a cool one.

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_4.htm
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Nov 5, 2016 - The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Blufton University The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body. 

chemwiki.ucdavis.edu › ... › Laws of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative. 

MIT: 5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. 

Second Law: There exists for every thermodynamic system in equilibrium an extensive scalar property called the entropy, such that in an infinitesimal reversible change of state of the system, where  is the absolute temperature and  is the amount of heat received by the system. The entropy of a thermally insulated system cannot decrease and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible. 

Book: "Thermodynamics."  Cambridge university press.
There are many ways to introduce the Second Law of Thermodynamics...all of it's statements are equivalent and self-consistent....
"Heat flows spontaneously from a system of higher temperature to a system of lower temperature."....

Book: A course in Thermodynamics. Joseph Kestin
It is impossible to produce work by reducing the energy of a system existing in thermal equilibrium and confined within a rigid adiabatic enclosure. 

second law of thermodynamics 
Second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy.  Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.
> ...



So lets see a measured observation of energy moving both ways....oh, what's that?  There are none?...OK.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> still hiding behind generalized statements meant for macroscopic observations? and implied definitions that were not meant for the specific events we are considering.



Hiding behind every observation ever made...what a hoot you have become.  When two way energy flow is proven...and observations made, and measurements recorded...and the laws of thermodynamics have been rewritten...be sure to let me know.



IanC said:


> find a link that states molecular emission of photons is controlled by the temperature of distant targets.








 don't see anything there about distance between T and Tc...do you?...



IanC said:


> while you are at it, show that the individual molecular targets can be given a specific energy level according to the group's average.



Sure thing....just as soon as you prove with empirical evidence, and actual observations and measurements, that the groups average has any bearing on the issue....of course, if such proof existed, the laws of thermodynamics would already be rewritten....wouldn't they?

]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
So lets see a measured observation of energy moving both ways*

Here you go, a graph of downward long-wave radiation over several 24 hour periods.







And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.



Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed...geez...what a goob....

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.
> ...



*Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed..*

They aren't flawed, your confused misinterpretation of them is flawed.

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Why do you assume I give a fuck why?
I want to know why the hotter corona doesn't prevent the surface from emitting toward the corona, as your stupid claims would suggest?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are really dense for someone who fancies himself to be quite bright...read the second law...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm...do you know what spontaneous means?...the article I provided is providing mechanisms for the energy movement...meaning that it isn't spontaneous...words mean things...and words used in physical laws are important...and the word spontaneous has a giant meaning in that context...learn something, you will feel better.


----------



## Crick (Nov 16, 2016)

What stops it SID?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> What stops it SID?




Couldn't say...what actually causes gravity....gravity is a much more easily observed and understood phenomenon than energy transfer and yet, we really don't have the foggiest idea of the fundamental mechanism...but you speak of energy transfer as if we understand it completely right down to the sub atomic level...which we don't...not even close....we have some mathematical models which as of yet are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...and are likely to change much in the centuries to come as we begin to actually learn something about energy transfer so that we no longer have to guess and hypothesize.


----------



## Crick (Nov 17, 2016)

The standard understanding of radiative heat transfer has no unknowns, SID. It doesn't require sentient matter able to throttle and aim its emissions and routinely violate special relativity.  That should bother you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
the article I provided
*
_The researchers used cutting-edge solar-imaging technology to observe the Sun’s chromosphere – a distinct region of the sun’s atmosphere sandwiched between the photosphere and the outer corona._


Your article says they can observe the chromosphere. Don't they know that photons (or waves) can't travel from the cooler atmosphere toward the hotter corona?

Were they fooled by their instruments?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I did...found this quote which settled the issue.
> 
> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.


You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I did...found this quote which settled the issue.
> ...




SSDD doesnt acknowledge entropy. he has figured out that entropy quickly sends him back to his dunce's corner, so he ignores any reference to it and just screams even louder that all forms of energy exchange are heat, therefore atomic scale emissions are controlled by the SLoT.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I did...found this quote which settled the issue.
> ...


do you believe the earth is a closed system?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




the peanut gallery has arrived.

define a closed system, and give an example.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha I ask a question and you deflect to a question you want answered without even answering.  Dude you're a hoot.

Is the earth a closed system?  Can you answer that or not?  I'm not answering your deflection.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




(deep sigh). the answer is obviously : NO

the more interesting question is....does heat flow differently in a closed or open system? work performed to heat or cool an object or space is obviously different. but does it affect the passive thermodynamic exchange afterwards? 

No.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesnt acknowledge entropy. he has figured out that entropy quickly sends him back to his dunce's corner, so he ignores any reference to it and just screams even louder that all forms of energy exchange are heat, therefore atomic scale emissions are controlled by the SLoT.


That's probably the only way he can handle thermodynamics. It's as simple minded as putting his hands over his ears and shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..."


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2016)

SSDD, I will even make it simpler for you. Here is a definition from an  MIT lecture: 5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
_No process is possible whose *sole *result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work.
_​Do you agree with that definition?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesnt acknowledge entropy. he has figured out that entropy quickly sends him back to his dunce's corner, so he ignores any reference to it and just screams even louder that all forms of energy exchange are heat, therefore atomic scale emissions are controlled by the SLoT.


I think he is in his dunce's corner. If you search his posts for "entropy" you get 6 pages of references.

These are excerpts from an early post where it is obvious that he accepts entropy as a statement of the second law. He tries to convince KONRADV that entropy is a valid expression of the law.

CO2 Follows Temperature
Energy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics -

Every energy transfer or transformation increases the entropy of the universe


There is a trend toward randomness


Energy must be spent to retain order - this spending of energy usually releases heat, which increases the entropy elsewhere
second law of thermodynamics -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
TITLE: principles of physical science
SECTION: Conservation of mass-energy
...energy is conserved provided that heat is taken into account. The irreversible nature of *the transfer from external energy of organized motion to random internal energy is a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics*.

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. *As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction*, and all natural processes are irreversible.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Ok then let`s get rid of the "deflection" and post how the first law of thermodynamics defines a closed system and get on with it:
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
There are some cases in which a process for an open system can, for particular purposes, be considered as if it were for a closed system. In an open system, by definition hypothetically or potentially, matter can pass between the system and its surroundings. But when, in a particular case, the process of interest involves only hypothetical or potential but no actual passage of matter, the process can be considered as if it were for a closed system.
See how simple it would have been to answer that. All you had to ponder if the earth is loosing mass out into the surrounding space...well is it?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2016)

polarbear said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


what is all the junk out in space?  Does space debris enter the earth?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> what is all the junk out in space? Does space debris enter the earth?


Yes indeed, many things hit the earth from outer space. You are probably not aware of it because cosmic rays are invisible to you. And meteorites seldom hit near you. Look for meteor shower alerts in the paper, go outside and you can see them for yourself.  I hope this answers your question.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what is all the junk out in space? Does space debris enter the earth?
> ...


I already knew it thanks.  It's why earth is not a closed system.


----------



## Crick (Nov 18, 2016)

As far as mass transfer goes, however, the rate of change as a percent of the planetary mass, is absolutely microscopic.


----------

