How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

[QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23024269, member: 29707"

radiating into a perfect vacuum...

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

Why do you suppose SB would have spoke to the radiation emitting from ideal black body in perfect thermal equilibrium made possible by an ideal interface with a perfect vacuum, and then put it in air where conduction and convection (which would be a less than perfect interface and alter that perfect equilibrium) were also possible in addition to radiation? Does that make any sort of rational, scientifically valid sense to you? If it does, by all means explain.

While you are at it...you might describe an instance of any perfect, or near perfect black body that is radiating into something other than a vacuum.[/QUOTE]

Why do you suppose SB would have spoke to the radiation emitting from ideal black body in perfect thermal equilibrium made possible by an ideal interface with a perfect vacuum,

Where did he say, or use, a perfect vacuum?

Does that make any sort of rational, scientifically valid sense to you?

Says the guy who knows all black bodies above 0K radiate, but, for some reason, stop radiating in equilibrium.
Or, for some reason, dial down their radiating if matter is anywhere in the universe in line of sight.

What's your rational, scientifically valid reasoning for that?

 

[Wuwei]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This

is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

You forgot that I said that the "toy" example of a "slab" atmosphere had the following assumptions and I adhered to those assumptions.

Your diagram assumes
area A = 1 m²
and ε = 1
Also the temperature of space is assumed to be zero

Look at your equations....do tell...what is the area of the atmosphere...the A is for area...you have no idea what equations are saying do you?

Yes look at my equations. You will see that when the area is set to 1 m² the result is the power per square meter.

The example you posted is not a climate model that should be taken seriously. It is an oversimplified example that students can understand. There are a number of unrealistic assumptions including the fact that they use a slab and not a exponentially decreasing density with altitude. This is another example of a reference you gave to something that you don't fully understand.

.

And what exactly is the area of a gas? There is a reason that the SB law can't correctly be applied to a gas...there are other laws that deal with gasses..

OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is always the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab". It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

.

 

[SSDD]

OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is always the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab". It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

I understand...which is why I brought it up in the first place....precisely how many 1 square meter "slabs" of air are in a 1 cubic meter block of air?

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating..

And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:

Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.

When I look at that equation, I see:

• An equation that counts the infrared radiation twice in computing a temperature even though the infrared radiation originates from a single source

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is radiating as if it were a perfect black body even though it isn't a black body, or even a gray body

• An equation that views the emitter in terms of area (A) although in this case, you can't calculate the area of the emitter since it has no area

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though only 0.04% of the emitter is even capable of emitting meaning that 0.004% of the area of the emitter is actually capable of emitting

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though almost none of the 0.0004% of its non existent area that is even capable of emitting is actually emitting because conduction and convection completely dominate the energy movement through its non existent area.

And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child...and then after all that, because your belief is so ingrained, and you are so blinded by it, you will still ignore all the problems with the equation that make it nothing more than a wild assed, wrong approach to a guess about why the atmosphere is the temperature that it is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is always the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab". It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

I understand...which is why I brought it up in the first place....precisely how many 1 square meter "slabs" of air are in a 1 cubic meter block of air?

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating..

And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:

Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.

When I look at that equation, I see:

• An equation that counts the infrared radiation twice in computing a temperature even though the infrared radiation originates from a single source

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is radiating as if it were a perfect black body even though it isn't a black body, or even a gray body

• An equation that views the emitter in terms of area (A) although in this case, you can't calculate the area of the emitter since it has no area

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though only 0.04% of the emitter is even capable of emitting meaning that 0.004% of the area of the emitter is actually capable of emitting

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though almost none of the 0.0004% of its non existent area that is even capable of emitting is actually emitting because conduction and convection completely dominate the energy movement through its non existent area.

And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child...and then after all that, because your belief is so ingrained, and you are so blinded by it, you will still ignore all the problems with the equation that make it nothing more than a wild assed, wrong approach to a guess about why the atmosphere is the temperature that it is.

Thank You... One person who actually gets it. The problems are so massive with the equation it is next to useless.. Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..

 

[SSDD]

OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is always the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab". It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

I understand...which is why I brought it up in the first place....precisely how many 1 square meter "slabs" of air are in a 1 cubic meter block of air?

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating..

And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:

Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.

When I look at that equation, I see:

• An equation that counts the infrared radiation twice in computing a temperature even though the infrared radiation originates from a single source

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is radiating as if it were a perfect black body even though it isn't a black body, or even a gray body

• An equation that views the emitter in terms of area (A) although in this case, you can't calculate the area of the emitter since it has no area

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though only 0.04% of the emitter is even capable of emitting meaning that 0.004% of the area of the emitter is actually capable of emitting

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though almost none of the 0.0004% of its non existent area that is even capable of emitting is actually emitting because conduction and convection completely dominate the energy movement through its non existent area.

And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child...and then after all that, because your belief is so ingrained, and you are so blinded by it, you will still ignore all the problems with the equation that make it nothing more than a wild assed, wrong approach to a guess about why the atmosphere is the temperature that it is.

Thank You... One person who actually gets it. The problems are so massive with the equation it is next to useless.. Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..

It comes close because it was custom tailored for out atmosphere and doesn't operate on any sort of real physics...if it did, then it could accurately predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere...it doesn't even come close to any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...

It is a reverse engineered wild assed guess...nothing more nothing less.

 

[Billy_Bob]

OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is always the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab". It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

I understand...which is why I brought it up in the first place....precisely how many 1 square meter "slabs" of air are in a 1 cubic meter block of air?

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating..

And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:

Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.

When I look at that equation, I see:

• An equation that counts the infrared radiation twice in computing a temperature even though the infrared radiation originates from a single source

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is radiating as if it were a perfect black body even though it isn't a black body, or even a gray body

• An equation that views the emitter in terms of area (A) although in this case, you can't calculate the area of the emitter since it has no area

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though only 0.04% of the emitter is even capable of emitting meaning that 0.004% of the area of the emitter is actually capable of emitting

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though almost none of the 0.0004% of its non existent area that is even capable of emitting is actually emitting because conduction and convection completely dominate the energy movement through its non existent area.

And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child...and then after all that, because your belief is so ingrained, and you are so blinded by it, you will still ignore all the problems with the equation that make it nothing more than a wild assed, wrong approach to a guess about why the atmosphere is the temperature that it is.

Thank You... One person who actually gets it. The problems are so massive with the equation it is next to useless.. Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..

It comes close because it was custom tailored for out atmosphere and doesn't operate on any sort of real physics...if it did, then it could accurately predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere...it doesn't even come close to any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...

It is a reverse engineered wild assed guess...nothing more nothing less.

Correct;

They needed a close approximation for modeling but close doesnt cut it in forward prediction. It ends up causing a positive forward bias and modeling failure.

 

[SSDD]

OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is always the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab". It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

I understand...which is why I brought it up in the first place....precisely how many 1 square meter "slabs" of air are in a 1 cubic meter block of air?

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating..

And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:

Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.

When I look at that equation, I see:

• An equation that counts the infrared radiation twice in computing a temperature even though the infrared radiation originates from a single source

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is radiating as if it were a perfect black body even though it isn't a black body, or even a gray body

• An equation that views the emitter in terms of area (A) although in this case, you can't calculate the area of the emitter since it has no area

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though only 0.04% of the emitter is even capable of emitting meaning that 0.004% of the area of the emitter is actually capable of emitting

• An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though almost none of the 0.0004% of its non existent area that is even capable of emitting is actually emitting because conduction and convection completely dominate the energy movement through its non existent area.

And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child...and then after all that, because your belief is so ingrained, and you are so blinded by it, you will still ignore all the problems with the equation that make it nothing more than a wild assed, wrong approach to a guess about why the atmosphere is the temperature that it is.

Thank You... One person who actually gets it. The problems are so massive with the equation it is next to useless.. Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..

It comes close because it was custom tailored for out atmosphere and doesn't operate on any sort of real physics...if it did, then it could accurately predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere...it doesn't even come close to any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...

It is a reverse engineered wild assed guess...nothing more nothing less.

Correct;

They needed a close approximation for modeling but close doesnt cut it in forward prediction. It ends up causing a positive forward bias and modeling failure.

What they need is to address the actual physics that govern the energy movement through the atmosphere..but they can't do that since it would un-demonize CO2 and the left would loose its talking points...

What amazes me is that there are those on this board, who are supposed to be bright enough to grasp the problems with that equation who are perfectly willing to shut down a conversation, and an entire thread that calls those problems, and the equation itself into question...to question such stupendously bad science makes one a denier...

 

[Wuwei]

Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.

Me wonder what you are thinking? You never think. Why should I wonder?

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?

Now you are confusing volume with surface area. With a "slab" atmosphere the area is defined by the surface normal to the flow. You are conflating the volume of the slab with the surface normal area. The importance of depth of an object along the surface normal has to do with the optical depth. Look it up. Don't be concerned if the GHG's are not fully opaque to IR for a small depth. Neither are sun glasses, half silvered mirrors, etc opaque to visible, but they still have an emissivity that can be measured.

I understand...

You obviously don't.

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating.

I already told you that the example is not climate science. It is a toy example where they explicitly assume it is a black body and the emissivity is one. Only the top of the slab is radiating to a vacuum.
You are confusing actual climate science with a toy example. Try reading the premise of the example again.

And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?

You are still confusing the toy example for students with actual climate science. Your slab example doesn't discuss convection and conduction. It's a lesson only on radiative transfer of energy.

The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:

Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.
When I look at that equation, I see: [blah blah]

I see it as a toy example for students.
.

And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child.

When I try to walk you through real science, you have a childish temper tantrum, and essentially call 150 years of science foolishness and idiocy, and try to convince everyone to believe your fake thermodynamics.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..

At least you get it. Thank you.

.

 

[Wuwei]

What amazes me is that there are those on this board, who are supposed to be bright enough to grasp the problems with that equation who are perfectly willing to shut down a conversation, and an entire thread that calls those problems, and the equation itself into question...to question such stupendously bad science makes one a denier.

Spoken like a true flat-earther.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..

At least you get it. Thank you.

.

Thank You, But SSDD is making a valid point. The equation is for a black body in a vacuum, a point you fail to understand. It also treats a non-blackbody as a blackbody. Two issues that can not be reconciled. The atmosphere is a multi-layer and multi-mixture body dominated by convection and conduction due to collisions being the primary method of energy transfer. Radiation is a bit player, in our atmosphere, below the tropopause.

Until these problems are addressed the Stefman-Bozman constant is just a reverse engineered SWAG. A close approximation in a fluid dynamic atmosphere doesn't work.

 

[Wuwei]

Thank You, But SSDD is making a valid point. The equation is for a black body in a vacuum, a point you fail to understand. It also treats a non-blackbody as a blackbody. Two issues that can not be reconciled. The atmosphere is a multi-layer and multi-mixture body dominated by convection and conduction due to collisions being the primary method of energy transfer. Radiation is a bit player, in our atmosphere, below the tropopause.

Until these problems are addressed the Stefman-Bozman constant is just a reverse engineered SWAG. A close approximation in a fluid dynamic atmosphere doesn't work.

The "slab" example was referring only to the radiation aspect. Sure, in actual climate science there are many other complex processes that must be considered, but that was outside the scope of the example. Most likely, SSDD was simply deflecting from the restricted slab example to a more complex problem so he could have something to argue about.

The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum. That is only SSDD's POV.

Radiation is not a bit player. Integrated over 24 hrs, the earth absorbs around 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m². SSDD has never had an explanation for that difference. The toy example points to a way of understanding the physics, but he still is in denial.

.

 

[SSDD]

If you want to turn the atmosphere into slabs, then physics says that there can be no radiation between two such objects in intimate contact with each other...again, we are back to convection and conduction being the primary means of energy movement.

You simply gloss over the glaring problems with the basis of the greenhouse effect...everything that comes after, no matter how complicated it gets is built from that basic equation which is so fraught with problems that it can never describe anything like the actual physics happening in the atmosphere...and it can never accurately predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...and it should be able to predict the temperature anywhere if it is based on real physics..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.

Incorrect;

The SB equation demands a vacuum as the atmosphere has a totally different emissitivity. This can change the radiative properties of the BB. Its this unknown that an a atmosphere brings, which they have yet to deal with.

IE; If I run water on a BB it cools rapidly or if it is cold warms rapidly. The issue is how those items in contact affect the BB's radiative properties.

Again, LWIR radiation is a bit play in the troposphere due to our atmospheres water content.

 

[Wuwei]

The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.

Incorrect;

The SB equation demands a vacuum as the atmosphere has a totally different emissitivity. This can change the radiative properties of the BB. Its this unknown that an a atmosphere brings, which they have yet to deal with.

IE; If I run water on a BB it cools rapidly or if it is cold warms rapidly. The issue is how those items in contact affect the BB's radiative properties.

The SB law does not require radiation to a vacuum in order for it to be valid. Where do you and SSDD get this?

You have to define more explicitly what configuration you are referring to. Radiation from exactly what to what. Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

.

 

[Wuwei]

If you want to turn the atmosphere into slabs, then physics says that there can be no radiation between two such objects in intimate contact with each other...

If you look at your toy example again you will see that the atmosphere slab is separated from the earth. There is no contact. Unrealistic? Of course. That's why it is a toy example.

You simply gloss over the glaring problems with the basis of the greenhouse effect...everything that comes after, no matter how complicated it gets is built from that basic equation which is so fraught with problems that it can never describe anything like the actual physics happening in the atmosphere...and it can never accurately predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...and it should be able to predict the temperature anywhere if it is based on real physics..

I don't gloss over it. The example does. You keep digressing away from the nature of the fictitious slab example that you brought up.


.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

 

[Wuwei]

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.

The writing of the equation is all the evidence I need. It does not make reference to anything other than the black body. IF it were to inclued the atmosphere it would have included it in the equation, which it does not.

Here is how Britanic Explaines the Law.

"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

SOURCE

The equations creation does not include the atmosphere, only the black body. Thus it, by itself, must be in a vacuum. The "black-body" calcuation is done in a vacuum.