Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
My argument was that earth LW IR warms the atmosphere, and you agreed and added a non sequitur about conduction.I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible
IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...
we would have a planet like Venus which radiates 16,549 W/m². (Have you figured out what happens to that radiation yet?) The earth would not be that hot of course.
No..you would have nothing like venus...the atmosphere on venus is 90 times more dense than our own...
I have always been able to explain the radiation...and am perfectly ready to do so when you are able to state in plain english what the equation I gave you says...and hell, I even did more than half of it for you...all you had to do was speak in plain english, a simple subtraction problem..and you can't do it...
When you do, I will be happy to provide you with an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in energy on venus complete with testable, workable formulas to explain...not that you would be able to grasp those formulas either since you can't even state in plain english what a simple subtraction problem says...
IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...
I asked you which step is wrong and you said you would add a seventh step. You did not say which step you disagreed with therefore I assumed you agreed. Again, which step of the following do you disagree with.
That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
- Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
- That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
- The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
- Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
- That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
- The conservation of energy requires the above.
I gave you what the equation says in plain English several times.
You have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that you have no idea what happens to the 15,700 W/m². That's a failure on your part.
IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...
I asked you which step is wrong and you said you would add a seventh step. You did not say which step you disagreed with therefore I assumed you agreed. Again, which step of the following do you disagree with.
That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
- Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
- That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
- The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
- Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
- That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
- The conservation of energy requires the above.
No..the air heats up via conduction...conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere dominated by conduction as much as you might wish otherwise...IR can not, and does not warm the air...conduction warms the air.
I gave you what the equation says in plain English several times.
You have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that you have no idea what happens to the 15,700 W/m². That's a failure on your part.
No you haven't...but hell, lets try it again...although I bet you will dodge again....
and as always, I will help you get started...Power equals emissivity times the S-B constant, times Area times.....?
IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...
I asked you which step is wrong and you said you would add a seventh step. You did not say which step you disagreed with therefore I assumed you agreed. Again, which step of the following do you disagree with.
That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
- Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
- That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
- The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
- Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
- That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
- The conservation of energy requires the above.
No..the air heats up via conduction...conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere dominated by conduction as much as you might wish otherwise...IR can not, and does not warm the air...conduction warms the air.
I gave you what the equation says in plain English several times.
You have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that you have no idea what happens to the 15,700 W/m². That's a failure on your part.
No you haven't...but hell, lets try it again...although I bet you will dodge again....
and as always, I will help you get started...Power equals emissivity times the S-B constant, times Area times.....?
You didn't name which of the 6 steps you disagree with. That is a failure on your part.
You really don't know what happens to the 15,700 W/m² that radiates from the surface of Venus. The only reason I'm pressing that is that it does not fit in with your fake physics and is an embarrassment that you are trying to avoid.
Nope. You can't. It embarrasses you every time I ask. Look, I understand. You painted yourself into a corner.Of course I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 on Venus...I wouldn't have claimed that I could if I couldn't do it..
The only reason you are pressing is to dodge stating what that equation says in plain language because you are such a f'ing bleating sheep, you can't bear to say it...The only one here being embarrassed, is you....running away from stating what a simple equation says...it's laughable...and I can watch it indefinitely...
Nope. You can't. It embarrasses you every time I ask. Look, I understand. You painted yourself into a corner.
You are ɓuɩʞɔոɟ lying. I gave it to you many many times. It is the same as the Dartmouth paper. Just because you don't like the physics doesn't mean I didn't tell you about it. Do you want me to post the answer again?
Unless the molecule can absorb the energy, retain the energy, and consume some of the energy before release, it can not warm..That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
Nope. You can't. It embarrasses you every time I ask. Look, I understand. You painted yourself into a corner.
Nope...I will be more than happy to explain as soon as you state what that equation says....not your version of it....but the equation I provided..l
You are ɓuɩʞɔոɟ lying. I gave it to you many many times. It is the same as the Dartmouth paper. Just because you don't like the physics doesn't mean I didn't tell you about it. Do you want me to post the answer again?
And still you are dodging...your equation is invalid for the reasons I gave...if you want to know about he energy on venus, you are going to have to simply state in plain language what the equation says...
Here...various links providing information on the S-B Law...not a single one requires you to apply the S-B constant twice....
Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia
Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan–Boltzmann Law - Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
This one is particularly informative....as it gives formula for radiation, convection, and conduction...
Law of cooling, heat conduction and Stefan-Boltzmann radiation laws fitted to experimental data for bones irradiated by CO2 laser
In short...your "alternative" S-B equation is bogus...invalid..irrelavent...trash...
Nope,My argument was that earth LW IR warms the atmosphere, and you agreed and added a non sequitur about conduction.I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible
IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...
we would have a planet like Venus which radiates 16,549 W/m². (Have you figured out what happens to that radiation yet?) The earth would not be that hot of course.
No..you would have nothing like venus...the atmosphere on venus is 90 times more dense than our own...
I have always been able to explain the radiation...and am perfectly ready to do so when you are able to state in plain english what the equation I gave you says...and hell, I even did more than half of it for you...all you had to do was speak in plain english, a simple subtraction problem..and you can't do it...
When you do, I will be happy to provide you with an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in energy on venus complete with testable, workable formulas to explain...not that you would be able to grasp those formulas either since you can't even state in plain english what a simple subtraction problem says...
IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light...
Until it gets absorbed by a GHG molecule.
I guess increasing emissivity actually slowed down the "speed of light escape" of IR, eh?
Unless the molecule can absorb the energy, retain the energy, and consume some of the energy before release, it can not warm..That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
The Dartmouth excerpt has three equations - emission, absorption, and net. The third equation is the same as the one you keep showing except for notation. You are going to have to define what you mean by "alternative" SB equation. I have no idea how you think about science because it's always bizarre. Your references are just standard stuff, and I don't know why you felt motivated to cite them.
I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.
I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.
That is exactly right. Boltzmann derived the equation
P = e sigma A T⁴
directly from Plank's black body radiation law. Plank's law defined radiation over a full spectrum. His student, Boltzmann, simply integrated over the full spectrum to get the above equation including an exact value for sigma for radiation.
Stefan found in his experiments the cooling rate of an object was not just dependent on the object temperatures 4th power, but also on the surround temperatures 4th power. He heuristically discovered a subtracted form followed the data.
To understand the experimental values of the cooling rate of an object, the absorption of heat of the object due to the surround at temperature Tc had to be considered. The input power that slows the cooling rate has a factor called absorptivity
I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.
That is exactly right. Boltzmann derived the equation
P = e sigma A T⁴
directly from Plank's black body radiation law. Plank's law defined radiation over a full spectrum. His student, Boltzmann, simply integrated over the full spectrum to get the above equation including an exact value for sigma for radiation.
Stefan found in his experiments the cooling rate of an object was not just dependent on the object temperatures 4th power, but also on the surround temperatures 4th power. He heuristically discovered a subtracted form followed the data.
Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
To understand the experimental values of the cooling rate of an object, the absorption of heat of the object due to the surround at temperature Tc had to be considered. The input power that slows the cooling rate has a factor called absorptivity
Sorry guy...the story that goes with your bogus equation is bogus as well...
By the way...there is no two way Planck equation either...both understood full well that energy moves in one direction...warm to cool.
I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.
That is exactly right. Boltzmann derived the equation
P = e sigma A T⁴
directly from Plank's black body radiation law. Plank's law defined radiation over a full spectrum. His student, Boltzmann, simply integrated over the full spectrum to get the above equation including an exact value for sigma for radiation.
Stefan found in his experiments the cooling rate of an object was not just dependent on the object temperatures 4th power, but also on the surround temperatures 4th power. He heuristically discovered a subtracted form followed the data.
Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
To understand the experimental values of the cooling rate of an object, the absorption of heat of the object due to the surround at temperature Tc had to be considered. The input power that slows the cooling rate has a factor called absorptivity
Sorry guy...the story that goes with your bogus equation is bogus as well...
By the way...there is no two way Planck equation either...both understood full well that energy moves in one direction...warm to cool.
but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
Dimmer switch!!
Aha perhaps you have a better explanation what an endothermic process is. Hilarious who chimes in here pretending to be holier than though using climate freak new-speak buzzwords to revise physics for the selfie stick dimwits. I remember a couple of years ago you wrote posts which made it quite obvious that you had trouble understanding the difference between power and energy....and look at you now "Temperature is the expression of energy in a large cohort of molecules" How many "cohorts" does a molecule have to have before I get to say what temperature it`s at?Unless the molecule can absorb the energy, retain the energy, and consume some of the energy before release, it can not warm..That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
What an idiot you are.
You cannot understand any of the basic principles.
Temperature is the expression of energy in a large cohort of molecules. Molecules do not 'consume' energy. Hahahahaha maybe they do and then shit out dark matter!
I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.
That is exactly right. Boltzmann derived the equation
P = e sigma A T⁴
directly from Plank's black body radiation law. Plank's law defined radiation over a full spectrum. His student, Boltzmann, simply integrated over the full spectrum to get the above equation including an exact value for sigma for radiation.
Stefan found in his experiments the cooling rate of an object was not just dependent on the object temperatures 4th power, but also on the surround temperatures 4th power. He heuristically discovered a subtracted form followed the data.
Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
To understand the experimental values of the cooling rate of an object, the absorption of heat of the object due to the surround at temperature Tc had to be considered. The input power that slows the cooling rate has a factor called absorptivity
Sorry guy...the story that goes with your bogus equation is bogus as well...
By the way...there is no two way Planck equation either...both understood full well that energy moves in one direction...warm to cool.
but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
Dimmer switch!!
Your interpretation not mine...
Set T to any temperature above 0K....now set Tc to any temperature less than T...P will have a value...Now set Tc to a different temperature...higher than the first number you set Tc too...P will be reduced...you call it a dimmer switch...I call it obeying the laws of physics...The fact is that P is reduced...meaning the object is radiating less energy because the temperature difference between T and Tc is less. The colder Tc gets, the more the object radiates...
The net power, P, changes.Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures..
You are confused. No I would say the power changes because of changes in emission and absorption of the object. Your hypothesis requires a dimmer switch.Set T to any temperature above 0K....now set Tc to any temperature less than T...P will have a value...Now set Tc to a different temperature...higher than the first number you set Tc too...P will be reduced...you call it a dimmer switch...I call it obeying the laws of physics...The fact is that P is reduced...meaning the object is radiating less energy because the temperature difference between T and Tc is less. The colder Tc gets, the more the object radiates...
Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
