Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..

Of course we're radiating into space (technically not a vacuum) ... where did you think we were radiating to? ... chocolate pudding, the persistent rash on my ankle, some magically charged æther? ... are you trying to put two black bodies together, without any space in between? ... that's about as far removed from what Stefan-Blotzmann is addressing as we can get ...

I'm sorry the Alarmists have convinced you that we can treat the atmosphere as a black body, we can't, we treat it as a fluid ... whatever's going on, we can assign a value of emissivity and use this in our equation without bothering with all the details of NS ... emissivity is a synonym of the greenhouse effect ... have you even bothered to solve the equation for this value of emissivity? ... didn't think so ...

What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical ... if you'll remember from high school algebra, if we include a Tc term on one side of the equals sign, we have to include it on the other side ... P in this context is irradiance, somehow subtracting Tc from this makes it something other than irradiance ... therefore yours is something other than SB ... get it, the Earth radiates into space, no where else ...

I checked yesterday ... weather satellites are still showing IR radiation at local noon ... apparently the Earth does radiate towards the Sun ... care to explain how this is possible if it violates your version of the 2nd Law? ... maybe the dimmer switch is broken again ...

 

[jc456]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

 

[jc456]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

View attachment 286083

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

View attachment 286083

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

 

[jc456]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

View attachment 286083

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

View attachment 286083

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

[jc456]

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form



energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

View attachment 286083

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 286083

Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

What is cool? How does cool flow?

 

[jc456]

2nd law says so. can't get past that one todd. I know it's hard. but, your failure continues.

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

What is cool? How does cool flow?

to cooler objects.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2nd law says so

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

can't get past that one todd.

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

but, your failure continues.

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

What is cool? How does cool flow?

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

 

[jc456]

nor can you get past the 2nd law. keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

What is cool? How does cool flow?

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

What is cool? How does cool flow?

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

 

[jc456]

as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?

What is cool? How does cool flow?

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is cool? How does cool flow?

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

 

[jc456]

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

I'm just talking on an internet board. I gave the statement from a physicist. when you can show the opposite transfer of heat than his comment, you be getting a nobel prize ole boi!!

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

I'm just talking on an internet board. I gave the statement from a physicist. when you can show the opposite transfer of heat than his comment, you be getting a nobel prize ole boi!!

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I'm just talking on an internet board.

Yes, all your errors are on an internet board.

I gave the statement from a physicist.

No physicist said "hot flows to cool".

when you can show the opposite transfer of heat than his comment

His comment is correct. Your misunderstanding is not correct.

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

Yup. And there is no conflict between this statement and the statement that the energy objects radiate is directly proportional to the fourth power of the body's thermodynamic temperature.

 

[ReinyDays]

but there is,

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form ...

... P = net radiated power ...

[red emphasis mine]

Other than a couple nitpicky mistakes ... the major flaw is you're using net values, this has the usual definition in this context, the difference between two (typically) opposite values ... gross income - payroll taxes = net income ... people born - people died = net population change ... here we have (power from 1 to 2) - (power from 2 to 1) = net power ... you claim the term (power from 2 to1) does not exist, which makes the net power equation stated above complete nonsense ... you can't have things both ways ...

The workaround is setting Tc = 3 K and ignore it ... that is the published value for the temperature of outer space ... or do you think we should a different value for this temperature of space? ...

The mistakes in your reference are tragic ... the idealness of our radiator has nothing to do with emissivity, these are all ideal; for e = 1 we have an ideal black body, for 0 < e < 1 we have an ideal grey body ... more troubling is P = power; when we insert the A term for area (in m^2), then the P term is irradiance (in W/m^2), we can drop the A term and then our P term becomes power (in W) ... very undisciplined on the part of the author ...

Do we know why weather satellites image IR at local noon? ...

 

[Wuwei]

Other than a couple nitpicky mistakes ... the major flaw is you're using net values, this has the usual definition in this context, the difference between two (typically) opposite values ... gross income - payroll taxes = net income ... people born - people died = net population change ... here we have (power from 1 to 2) - (power from 2 to 1) = net power ... you claim the term (power from 2 to1) does not exist, which makes the net power equation stated above complete nonsense ... you can't have things both ways ...

The workaround is setting Tc = 3 K and ignore it ... that is the published value for the temperature of outer space ... or do you think we should a different value for this temperature of space? ...

The mistakes in your reference are tragic ... the idealness of our radiator has nothing to do with emissivity, these are all ideal; for e = 1 we have an ideal black body, for 0 < e < 1 we have an ideal grey body ... more troubling is P = power; when we insert the A term for area (in m^2), then the P term is irradiance (in W/m^2), we can drop the A term and then our P term becomes power (in W) ... very undisciplined on the part of the author ...

Do we know why weather satellites image IR at local noon? ...

Oops. It looks like SSDD didn't coach his sock puppet enough in how to promote fake science.
.

 

[SSDD]

Of course we're radiating into space (technically not a vacuum) ... where did you think we were radiating to? ... chocolate pudding, the persistent rash on my ankle, some magically charged æther? ... are you trying to put two black bodies together, without any space in between? ... that's about as far removed from what Stefan-Blotzmann is addressing as we can get ...

Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock...once again, you are arguing against something I never said....

I'm sorry the Alarmists have convinced you that we can treat the atmosphere as a black body, we can't, we treat it as a fluid ...

Again...arguing against something I never said...in fact I have said explicitly more than once that the atmosphere is not a black body...and not even a gray body....

What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical ...

And you seem to think that that makes them physically the same...this may come as a surprise to you but those equations describe different physical realities...till you come to terms with that, your arguments will be moot.

I checked yesterday ... weather satellites are still showing IR radiation at local noon ... apparently the Earth does radiate towards the Sun ... care to explain how this is possible if it violates your version of the 2nd Law? ... maybe the dimmer switch is broken again ...

You mean energy is radiating towards the satellite which is blocking the sun? Of course..the satellite is cooler than the surface of the earth..in order to say that the earth is radiating towards the sun, you would have to make your measurements from the sun itself...if you block the sun with a cooler object, of course radiation is going to move from the warmer earth to the cooler object.