Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

.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..

Suppose the object is colder than the surround. The resulting negative value of power P then refers to how much the object absorbs.

Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...

It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.

.

And clearly many do not...since the SB law is used routinely to determine radiation emitting from the atmosphere...

And look who is talking...how many pages did you resist actually stating in english what the equation said? ...was it 6 pages or was it 10 pages..and when you finally said in plain english what the equation was stating, you finally admitted that it was saying precisely what I had been saying that it said...then you immediately reverted to your interpretation..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Smart emitters are awesome!!!

 

[Wuwei]

Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...

The SB law doesn't put any constraints on the surrounding temperature.
The SB law works for a warmer surround. The equation simply shows that the object absorbs more than it emits.
Here are some references.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Radiation – The Physics Hypertextbook
It is now derived mathematically from Planck's law.
P = ɛơA(T⁴ − T₀⁴)
where…
P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)
A = surface area [m²] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T = absolute temperature [K] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T₀ = absolute temperature [K] of the environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SBLaw
To correct for this absorption, you should use a modified Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
L = As (T⁴ - Tenv⁴)
Where Tenv is the temperature of the environment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stefan–Boltzmann Law - Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
Two bodies that radiate toward each other have a net heat flux between them. The net flow rate of heat between them is given by:
q = ɛơ(T⁴₁ −T⁴₂) [J/m²s]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blackbody Radiation - ScienceDirect
All objects that have a temperature at any value other than absolute zero continuously emit and absorb radiation.

And look who is talking...how many pages did you resist actually stating in english what the equation said? ...was it 6 pages or was it 10 pages..and when you finally said in plain english what the equation was stating, you finally admitted that it was saying precisely what I had been saying that it said...then you immediately reverted to your interpretation..

Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.

.

 

[Wuwei]

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...

That is one of the grossest misunderstandings of science that I have ever heard.
Algebraic manipulation does not change the meanings of the terms used in a formula. Complex arithmetic and algebra is used in deriving almost everything in science. The "physical realities" of each term is and must be unchanged for anything to make sense.

There is no limit to the depth that you will sink to in order to promote your fake physics. That really takes the cake.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

... where did you think we were radiating to? ...

...once again, you are arguing against something I never said....

Right ... you've never said where we're radiating to ... let's try this again ... I say we're radiating into outer space ... you think we're radiating into [fill in the blank] ...

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....

It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.

And clearly many do not...since the SB law is used routinely to determine radiation emitting from the atmosphere...

Are you making two opposite claims now? ... that's funny ... you got it right the first time, but you discovered that "paints you into a corner" ... you can't have things both ways ...

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.

Do you mean in alternate universes there's alternate realities? ... not sure that makes claims in this universe and this reality moot, but it's an interesting philosophical question ... total power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, to make a math equation we insert the "constant of proportionality" giving us P = oT^4 where o = the Stefan=Boltzmann constant ... whatever correct algebra we apply doesn't change the proportionality ... perhaps in some alternate universe we can add a Tc term to one side of the equation and not the other ... but in this universe that's incorrect ... it's also incorrect to use the same letter to represent two different values in the same context ... [rolls eyes] ... but I'm afraid you're way too far down your rabbit hole to see this ... tell Alice I said hello ...

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.

Ha ha ha ha ... that's rich ... intelligent photons with a sophisticated communications network ... or are you suggesting for the cause of the camera we have the effect of a photon being emitted 50 milliseconds beforehand? ... is this a joke? ...

the bartender says "we don't serve faster-than-light particles in this establishment" ... A tachyon walks into a bar ...

Ha ha ha ha ... get it? ... the effect occurs before the cause ... it's a joke, don't take it seriously ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.

[raises hand] ... it was I who said SB law is used without consideration of where the energy goes ... because the energy always goes into outer space ... that's a perfectly safe assumption for photometry ... and as I understand matters, it's also perfectly safe for computational fluid dynamics ... I suppose that doesn't make sense to someone so unclear on basic algebra ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... where did you think we were radiating to? ...

...once again, you are arguing against something I never said....

Right ... you've never said where we're radiating to ... let's try this again ... I say we're radiating into outer space ... you think we're radiating into [fill in the blank] ...

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....

It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.

And clearly many do not...since the SB law is used routinely to determine radiation emitting from the atmosphere...

Are you making two opposite claims now? ... that's funny ... you got it right the first time, but you discovered that "paints you into a corner" ... you can't have things both ways ...

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.

Do you mean in alternate universes there's alternate realities? ... not sure that makes claims in this universe and this reality moot, but it's an interesting philosophical question ... total power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, to make a math equation we insert the "constant of proportionality" giving us P = oT^4 where o = the Stefan=Boltzmann constant ... whatever correct algebra we apply doesn't change the proportionality ... perhaps in some alternate universe we can add a Tc term to one side of the equation and not the other ... but in this universe that's incorrect ... it's also incorrect to use the same letter to represent two different values in the same context ... [rolls eyes] ... but I'm afraid you're way too far down your rabbit hole to see this ... tell Alice I said hello ...

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.

Ha ha ha ha ... that's rich ... intelligent photons with a sophisticated communications network ... or are you suggesting for the cause of the camera we have the effect of a photon being emitted 50 milliseconds beforehand? ... is this a joke? ...

the bartender says "we don't serve faster-than-light particles in this establishment" ... A tachyon walks into a bar ...

Ha ha ha ha ... get it? ... the effect occurs before the cause ... it's a joke, don't take it seriously ...

Ha ha ha ha ... get it? ... the effect occurs before the cause ... it's a joke, don't take it seriously …

SSDD has claimed that photons can predict their target billions of light years away, billions of years in the future, before they decide to travel in that direction.

It's a long, confusing explanation, just to deny "back radiation".

 

[SSDD]

Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.

.

I can only guess that you just lie so much that you can't remember what you said to who...

In reference to this equation:

You said...and I quote:

"That particular equation states that the power output from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a colder background."

And you said it here:

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

 

[SSDD]

where did you think we were radiating to? ...

Ever notice people's eyes glazing over when you talk to them because they have no idea what you are talking about? This is a good example...Feel free to provide a quote from me suggesting that the earth is radiating anywhere other than into space. I'll wait...

Right ... you've never said where we're radiating to ... let's try this again ... I say we're radiating into outer space ... you think we're radiating into [fill in the blank] ...

See above...still waiting

Are you making two opposite claims now? ... that's funny ... you got it right the first time, but you discovered that "paints you into a corner" ... you can't have things both ways ...

Again...what in the hell are you talking about? What "opposite" claims are you suggesting that I made....I'll wait....

total power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, to make a math equation we insert the "constant of proportionality" giving us P = oT^4 where o = the Stefan=Boltzmann constant ... whatever correct algebra we apply doesn't change the proportionality ...

Proportionality was not the topic..but thanks for sharing...

Ha ha ha ha ... that's rich ... intelligent photons with a sophisticated communications network ... or are you suggesting for the cause of the camera we have the effect of a photon being emitted 50 milliseconds beforehand? ... is this a joke? ...

Yet another person who thinks that intelligence is required to obey the laws of physics...

 

[SSDD]

Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.

[raises hand] ... it was I who said SB law is used without consideration of where the energy goes ... because the energy always goes into outer space ... that's a perfectly safe assumption for photometry ... and as I understand matters, it's also perfectly safe for computational fluid dynamics ... I suppose that doesn't make sense to someone so unclear on basic algebra ...

Again.....thanks for sharing but your comments have nothing to do with the statement wuwei was answering...

 

[Wuwei]

Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference..

I can only guess that you just lie so much that you can't remember what you said to who...
In reference to this equation:

You said...and I quote:

"That particular equation states that the power output from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a colder background."

And you said it here:
Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

Just what are you whining about? I explained it a few posts later.

You are the one who was dishonest.
The only reason I said a colder background is because you said you were calling Tc colder. But science recognizes that in the more general form, the background can be any temperature and the SB equation tells how fast an object gains or loses temperature depending on if the background temperature is higher or lower.

If you had posted the equation

P = ƐơA (T⁴ – TH⁴)​

and said TH was hotter than T, then I would have said
"That particular equation states that the power absorbed from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a hotter background."

However, as I said then and say now science recognizes the more general equation is:

P = ƐơA (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​

Where the equation is valid for any temperatures, T₁ and T₂.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

The backtracking begins ... "I never said that and you can't make me admit that I did" ...

So: you agree the cooler Earth can radiate towards the warmer Sun as long as there's eight minutes of much colder space in between ... and that because the Earth is entirely surrounded by the much colder space, she radiates in all directions ... i.e. radially ...

Proportionality was not the topic..but thanks for sharing...

Yes ... this is the topic at hand ... Stefen-Boltzmann Law is stated as a proportionality ... if you're not using this law, then you can't use the equation that's based on the law ... although this may explain some of your confusion about SB ...

Yet another person who thinks that intelligence is required to obey the laws of physics...

Wow ... just wow ... I think you should drink a cup of coffee before posting to the internet ... resurrect your objective self and read this line again ... see, whatever you were trying to say came out horribly wrong ...

If you are now agreed that the cold Earth can radiate towards the hot Sun as long as there's plenty of much colder space in between ... we can get back to the subject at hand ... we can use Wein's Law and determine the Earth's blackbody temperature is 4ºC ... however, we measure 16ºC ... you claim this can't be caused by the greenhouse effect, but you still haven't explained what does cause this higher temperature ... "I'll wait" ...

 

[SSDD]

The backtracking begins ... "I never said that and you can't make me admit that I did" ...

Not at all. Just pointing out that it seems as if you are looking at me, but having a conversation with some entirely different person.

And why am I not surprised that you didn't provide any quotes from me stating the things you claim I said?

So:

you agree the cooler Earth can radiate towards the warmer Sun as long as there's eight minutes of much colder space in between ... and that because the Earth is entirely surrounded by the much colder space, she radiates in all directions ... i.e. radially ...

Once again...you must be speaking to someone else. I never agreed to any such thing. Do you suffer from wuwei's affliction? He reads the words I write, but then they go through some sort of interpretation filter in his head which leaves him arguing against things I never said as well Unfortunate...to be able to read words but not respond to them directly...

Yes ... this is the topic at hand ... Stefen-Boltzmann Law is stated as a proportionality ... if you're not using this law, then you can't use the equation that's based on the law ... although this may explain some of your confusion about SB ...

Talk about getting lost in trivialities...

Wow ... just wow ... I think you should drink a cup of coffee before posting to the internet ... resurrect your objective self and read this line again ... see, whatever you were trying to say came out horribly wrong ...

I doubt it. I tend to say exactly what I meant to say.

If you are now agreed that the cold Earth can radiate towards the hot Sun as long as there's plenty of much colder space in between ... we can get back to the subject at hand ... ..

Again....a conversation with someone else...I certainly never agreed to any such thing, and really didn't see a post from anyone who did. Maybe if you provide the exact statement from me to which you are speaking, we can at least establish that you aren't actually responding to anything that I have actually said.

 

[SSDD]

Just what are you whining about? I explained it a few posts later.

No.. You stated exactly what the equation said..then a few posts later you stated your interpretation ....which was quite different from what the equation actually said..

 

[Wuwei]

Do you suffer from wuwei's affliction? He reads the words I write, but then they go through some sort of interpretation filter in his head which leaves him arguing against things I never said as well Unfortunate...to be able to read words but not respond to them directly...

That is a total lie. You are being a lying troll again.
.

 

[Wuwei]

Just what are you whining about? I explained it a few posts later.

No.. You stated exactly what the equation said.

Of course I stated the equation in terms of what you said the Tc meant. If you want it to be colder in that specific case, then that is the assumption.

then a few posts later you stated your interpretation ....which was quite different from what the equation actually said..

Do you suffer from an affliction? You read the words I write, but then go through some sort of interpretation filter in your head

I later stated the SCIENCE meaning of the equation which is not an interpretation.

Read this again:
If you had posted the equation

P = ƐơA (T⁴ – TH⁴)​

and said TH was hotter than T, then I would have said
"That particular equation states that the power absorbed from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a hotter background."
However, as I said then and say now science recognizes the more general equation is:

P = ƐơA (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​

Where the equation is valid for any temperatures, T₁ and T₂.

That is not an interpretation. It's the science you will find in any appropriate textbook, lecture, or journal. Your problem is that you have never read any textbook, or journal, or listened to any lecture on the subject. So it's understandable you have a misinterpretation.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

... we can use Wein's Law and determine the Earth's blackbody temperature is 4ºC ... however, we measure 16ºC ... you claim this can't be caused by the greenhouse effect, but you still haven't explained what does cause this higher temperature ... "I'll wait" ...

You forgot to answer this last part ...

 

[SSDD]

... we can use Wein's Law and determine the Earth's blackbody temperature is 4ºC ... however, we measure 16ºC ... you claim this can't be caused by the greenhouse effect, but you still haven't explained what does cause this higher temperature ... "I'll wait" ...

You forgot to answer this last part ...

I will go with Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot who thought that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities....they all predicted temperature gradients in columns of air but lacked instrumentation sensitive enough to verify the predictions...such temperature gradients have been observed, measured, and repeated in the laboratory by Graeff.


Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot.....who was Arrhenius anyway and why does his hypothesis still lack any observed, measured support after all these years?

 

[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 ...

... 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? ...

My math says if T=Tc in the equation, the answer is zero. dude you can make up all the bullshit you want, but the math equation when t=tc = zero.

 

[jc456]

Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...

The SB law doesn't put any constraints on the surrounding temperature.
The SB law works for a warmer surround. The equation simply shows that the object absorbs more than it emits.
Here are some references.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Radiation – The Physics Hypertextbook
It is now derived mathematically from Planck's law.
P = ɛơA(T⁴ − T₀⁴)
where…
P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)
A = surface area [m²] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T = absolute temperature [K] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T₀ = absolute temperature [K] of the environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SBLaw
To correct for this absorption, you should use a modified Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
L = As (T⁴ - Tenv⁴)
Where Tenv is the temperature of the environment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stefan–Boltzmann Law - Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
Two bodies that radiate toward each other have a net heat flux between them. The net flow rate of heat between them is given by:
q = ɛơ(T⁴₁ −T⁴₂) [J/m²s]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blackbody Radiation - ScienceDirect
All objects that have a temperature at any value other than absolute zero continuously emit and absorb radiation.

And look who is talking...how many pages did you resist actually stating in english what the equation said? ...was it 6 pages or was it 10 pages..and when you finally said in plain english what the equation was stating, you finally admitted that it was saying precisely what I had been saying that it said...then you immediately reverted to your interpretation..

Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.

.

I love it when you all don't know what a minus sign actually means. And why one is T and the other is t something. 'T' is always before the minus sign. hmmmmmm and when they equal each other the answer to the equation will always be zero. always. unless of course your math skills have escalated outside ours.

And exactly where is the 'W' at in this equation?
Radiation – The Physics Hypertextbook
It is now derived mathematically from Planck's law.
P = ɛơA(T⁴ − T₀⁴)
where…
P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)
A = surface area [m²] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T = absolute temperature [K] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T₀ = absolute temperature [K] of the environment
and btw, when 'T' equals 'To' P=Zero. Zero flow rate.