No Evidence

[SSDD]

And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..

You finally stated the configuration for the equation. So, if T refers to the temperature of the object with area A, and Tc refers to the background temperature, then using this equation:

how would you write the equation if the object at temperature T is colder than the background at Tc?. I know how a physicist would write it, I'm curious how you would.

.

The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it? Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs? I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..

You finally stated the configuration for the equation. So, if T refers to the temperature of the object with area A, and Tc refers to the background temperature, then using this equation:

how would you write the equation if the object at temperature T is colder than the background at Tc?. I know how a physicist would write it, I'm curious how you would.

.

The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it? Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs? I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation.

The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc,

And T can be the object or the background.

 

[Wuwei]

The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it? Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs? I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation

So you say, but suppose you are an engineer and you must solve a problem of energy flow of a cold sphere of surface area, A, in a large uniformly warmer background. What equation do you use?

 

[SSDD]

The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it? Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs? I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation

So you say, but suppose you are an engineer and you must solve a problem of energy flow of a cold sphere of surface area, A, in a large uniformly warmer background. What equation do you use?

You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.

 

[Wuwei]

You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.

So you are saying the background is the sphere? And the object is the room? Then the area A must then be that of the room. Suppose the room has a very complex interior architecture, with furniture, spiral staircases, etc. Would you measure all of that to get the area, A, as an engineer? You easily know the surface area of the sphere. Are you saying the area of the sphere is immaterial?

Remember the area of the background is not in the SB equation.

 

[SSDD]

You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.

So you are saying the background is the sphere? And the object is the room? Then the area A must then be that of the room. Suppose the room has a very complex interior architecture, with furniture, spiral staircases, etc. Would you measure all of that to get the area, A, as an engineer? You easily know the surface area of the sphere. Are you saying the area of the sphere is immaterial?

Remember the area of the background is not in the SB equation.

.

The complexity of the interior archeceture is irrelavent....if it has a surface, it has an area and you said the room was uniformly warm...that being the case it wouldn’t matter if the room were a plain box or the most complicated structure imaginable..uniformly warm is what it is..want to move the goalposts now?

Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question, Tc isn’t necessarily the background, This equation places the radiator in the presence of other matter...Tc is the other matter as opposed to the empty vacuum assumed by the basic formula of the S-B law. set up a situation that violates that basic assumption and you will need to use something other than the S-B law....say surrounding a cooler radiator with a void filled with warmer gas...no surface area for th radiator...

If you have a complex radiator where different parts of it are radiating at different temperatures, the process of determining precisely what was radiating where and how much energy was moving from each warmer surface to each cooler surface and how rapidly each cooler surface was warming in turn could become hopelessly complicated..

If, however, you know the area of the radiator, and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is.

 

[jc456]

And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..

You finally stated the configuration for the equation. So, if T refers to the temperature of the object with area A, and Tc refers to the background temperature, then using this equation:

how would you write the equation if the object at temperature T is colder than the background at Tc?. I know how a physicist would write it, I'm curious how you would.

.

And, still no answer to ssdd’s Question on the equation! Sad.

 

[Wuwei]

You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.

So you are saying the background is the sphere? And the object is the room? Then the area A must then be that of the room. Suppose the room has a very complex interior architecture, with furniture, spiral staircases, etc. Would you measure all of that to get the area, A, as an engineer? You easily know the surface area of the sphere. Are you saying the area of the sphere is immaterial?

Remember the area of the background is not in the SB equation.

.

The complexity of the interior archeceture is irrelavent....if it has a surface, it has an area and you said the room was uniformly warm...that being the case it wouldn’t matter if the room were a plain box or the most complicated structure imaginable..uniformly warm is what it is..want to move the goalposts now?

Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question, Tc isn’t necessarily the background, This equation places the radiator in the presence of other matter...Tc is the other matter as opposed to the empty vacuum assumed by the basic formula of the S-B law. set up a situation that violates that basic assumption and you will need to use something other than the S-B law....say surrounding a cooler radiator with a void filled with warmer gas...no surface area for th radiator...

If you have a complex radiator where different parts of it are radiating at different temperatures, the process of determining precisely what was radiating where and how much energy was moving from each warmer surface to each cooler surface and how rapidly each cooler surface was warming in turn could become hopelessly complicated..

If, however, you know the area of the radiator, and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is.

The complexity of a background all at the same temperature is irrelevant. However when you say that the SB equation is this,

the variable A refers to the object with the temperature T, not Tc. Since you now refer to the complex background as the predominant radiator at temperature T, you must supply the area of the background in order for the formula to have any value.

You still haven't given a formula that an engineer can use to compute the energy flow for a cold sphere in a hot room.
A scientist has a simple answer. You don't.

 

[jc456]

You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.

So you are saying the background is the sphere? And the object is the room? Then the area A must then be that of the room. Suppose the room has a very complex interior architecture, with furniture, spiral staircases, etc. Would you measure all of that to get the area, A, as an engineer? You easily know the surface area of the sphere. Are you saying the area of the sphere is immaterial?

Remember the area of the background is not in the SB equation.

.

The complexity of the interior archeceture is irrelavent....if it has a surface, it has an area and you said the room was uniformly warm...that being the case it wouldn’t matter if the room were a plain box or the most complicated structure imaginable..uniformly warm is what it is..want to move the goalposts now?

Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question, Tc isn’t necessarily the background, This equation places the radiator in the presence of other matter...Tc is the other matter as opposed to the empty vacuum assumed by the basic formula of the S-B law. set up a situation that violates that basic assumption and you will need to use something other than the S-B law....say surrounding a cooler radiator with a void filled with warmer gas...no surface area for th radiator...

If you have a complex radiator where different parts of it are radiating at different temperatures, the process of determining precisely what was radiating where and how much energy was moving from each warmer surface to each cooler surface and how rapidly each cooler surface was warming in turn could become hopelessly complicated..

If, however, you know the area of the radiator, and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is.

The complexity of a background all at the same temperature is irrelevant. However when you say that the SB equation is this,

the variable A refers to the object with the temperature T, not Tc. Since you now refer to the complex background as the predominant radiator at temperature T, you must supply the area of the background in order for the formula to have any value.

You still haven't given a formula that an engineer can use to compute the energy flow for a cold sphere in a hot room.
A scientist has a simple answer. You don't.

You haven’t shown there’s the need for one. 2 nd law doesn’t mean anything to you!

 

[SSDD]

The complexity of a background all at the same temperature is irrelevant. However when you say that the SB equation is this,

the variable A refers to the object with the temperature T, not Tc.

You really can't read an equation can you? A refers to the area of the radiator...that being the object with the highest temperature.. Both T and Tc have temperatures...the important factor is how much of a difference there is between the two temperatures...

Since you now refer to the complex background as the predominant radiator at temperature T, you must supply the area of the background in order for the formula to have any value.

Did I not say that if you know the area of the radiator (T) and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is.

You still haven't given a formula that an engineer can use to compute the energy flow for a cold sphere in a hot room.

Of course I have...this really is that far over your head...isn't it. If you know the area of the walls and whatever other complications you care to put in the room, and you know the emissivity of the objects in the room, and you know, in real time, the changes in the temperature of the sphere, you can calculate P...all you are interested in is how much energy is moving from the warm object to the cooler object.. P= the amount of energy being transferred to the cold object.. The amount and rate of the change of the temperature differences between T and Tc will tell you precisely how much energy Tc is absorbing.

A scientist has a simple answer. You don't.

I just gave you a simple answer..and it went right over your head...I have been yanking your chain for refusing to simply state what that equation says because I thought that you couldn't bring yourself to say anything that contradicts your belief in models...turns out that you really can't read that simple equation and know what it says.

 

[Wuwei]

You really can't read an equation can you? A refers to the area of the radiator...that being the object with the highest temperature.. Both T and Tc have temperatures...the important factor is how much of a difference there is between the two temperatures...

Yes and the highest temperature of a cold sphere in a hotter room would then be the room. But the area A, of the emitter (the room) is part of the formula. So in order to apply the formula you would have to know A.

Did I not say that if you know the area of the radiator (T) and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is

But that would be hard to find. You can't have it both ways. The area A of the radiator must be in the equation, but it can't be brushed aside by saying it makes no difference.

You are saying,
T is the temperature of a complex room,
Tc is the temperature of a sphere in the middle of the room,
P is the power
A is the area of the complex room.

According to you the formula changes if the room changes in size (A will change), but P should not change since the background is at uniform temperature.

The only conclusion is that you don't understand the formula.
The Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites have a simple answer.

just gave you a simple answer

Your answer was not simple nor correct at all. Try again.

 

[SSDD]

Yes and the highest temperature of a cold sphere in a hotter room would then be the room. But the area A, of the emitter (the room) is part of the formula. So in order to apply the formula you would have to know A.

You seem to be confused about what T and Tc are. T and Tc are simply two objects of different temperatures...room is an irrelevant term....

But that would be hard to find. You can't have it both ways. The area A of the radiator must be in the equation, but it can't be brushed aside by saying it makes no difference.

Of course it makes no difference....the only thing that matters is how much energy is being transferred to Tc...

You are saying,
T is the temperature of a complex room,
Tc is the temperature of a sphere in the middle of the room,
P is the power
A is the area of the complex room.

According to you the formula changes if the room changes in size (A will change), but P should not change since the background is at uniform temperature.

So we have a room that changes in size now? How much further out there do you want to get? Since you have no math skills, I am not surprised that you would not be aware that if you change any of the parameters on one side of the equals sign, the figure on the other side of the equal sign will change also. Are you really this poor at math?

The only conclusion is that you don't understand the formula.

I am laughing in your stupid face. You get so wrapped up in your interpretations that you are literally out of contact with reality. And it is clear that none of this is simple for you...you don't even begin to grasp the topic.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it makes no difference....the only thing that matters is how much energy is being transferred to Tc...

That is the crux of your problem. You say the area makes no difference in the room size. I agree with that because that is what anyone would see. But it sure makes a difference when you look at the formula. The area, A, is right there in the formula. The conclusion is that you have the wrong opinion of what the formula is.

 

[SSDD]

That is the crux of your problem. You say the area makes no difference in the room size. I agree with that because that is what anyone would see. But it sure makes a difference when you look at the formula. The area, A, is right there in the formula. The conclusion is that you have the wrong opinion of what the formula is.

Again...your interpretation...If you want to set up a crazy scenario where what was a uniformly warm room, now becomes a complicated room which changes size, you would have little option but to determine how much energy was being absorbed by TC in order to determine P. If you know T, Tc, and P you can derive A. If you know any 3 of the variables, you can derive the 4th.

 

[rightwinger]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

 

[SSDD]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Feel free to pull your head out of the sand and provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which challenges any of my 3 statements... Keep your head in a hole like that and you will be a dupe for your entire life.

 

[Wuwei]

Again...your interpretation...If you want to set up a crazy scenario where what was a uniformly warm room, now becomes a complicated room which changes size, you would have little option but to determine how much energy was being absorbed by TC in order to determine P.

Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

If you know T, Tc, and P you can derive A. If you know any 3 of the variables, you can derive the 4th.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

 

[SSDD]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

And the second law of thermodynamics, and the S-B law, and every observation and measurement ever made...just those.