Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Crick]

Since you aren't one? You've claimed repeatedly to be able to explain the atmospheric heating of all the planets. Why have you resisted Wuwei's queries re Venus for so long?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry...guess

Since you aren't one? You've claimed repeatedly to be able to explain the atmospheric heating of all the planets. Why have you resisted Wuwei's queries re Venus for so long?

Guess you need to find an adult as well...of course that is a given...isn't it?

And the only reason I didn't post the information earlier....as I stated at least a dozen times...I would not provide the reason for the 16,000 W/m2 on venus till such time as he stated in plain english what the SB equation says...he finally did and I posted the information he wanted immediately. What makes you so dishonest?

 

[Crick]

You have NOT answered the question.

 

[SSDD]

Of course I did....do the math...I provided the formula and you claim to be an engineer. The fact that you don't like the answer is a non issue.

 

[Crick]

You provided *a* formula. It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care. You think it provides the answer you want. Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.

 

[SSDD]

You provided *a* formula. It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care. You think it provides the answer you want. Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.

He pointed out that the surface of venus gets nothing like 16,000 W/m2 of energy and yet, the surface temperature suggests 16,000W/m2 of energy....What I provided explains the disparity between the energy that Venus receives from the sun and the apparent W/m2 required to produce the measured temperature.

Terribly sorry this is all so far over your head...Like I said..go find an adult to help explain it to you.

 

[Crick]

Again, the idea that compression provides thermal energy on a continuing basis is ignorant nonsense.

 

[Wuwei]

You provided *a* formula. It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care. You think it provides the answer you want. Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.

He pointed out that the surface of venus gets nothing like 16,000 W/m2 of energy and yet, the surface temperature suggests 16,000W/m2 of energy....What I provided explains the disparity between the energy that Venus receives from the sun and the apparent W/m2 required to produce the measured temperature.

Terribly sorry this is all so far over your head...Like I said..go find an adult to help explain it to you.

What you provided explains nothing about where the radiation goes. Just irrelevant smoke screen.

Lets make it simple. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Something that hot must radiate 16,000 W/m2. That radiation can't all go to space. Where does that radiation all go?

Yes we know the lapse rate can be computed and is equal to Grav Const / Specific heat. And it can be computed using enthalpy as part of the calculation.That does not explain where the surface EM radiation goes. Your brand of alternate physics simply fails.

 

[SSDD]

You provided *a* formula. It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care. You think it provides the answer you want. Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.

He pointed out that the surface of venus gets nothing like 16,000 W/m2 of energy and yet, the surface temperature suggests 16,000W/m2 of energy....What I provided explains the disparity between the energy that Venus receives from the sun and the apparent W/m2 required to produce the measured temperature.

Terribly sorry this is all so far over your head...Like I said..go find an adult to help explain it to you.

What you provided explains nothing about where the radiation goes. Just irrelevant smoke screen.

Lets make it simple. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Something that hot must radiate 16,000 W/m2. That radiation can't all go to space. Where does that radiation all go?

Yes we know the lapse rate can be computed and is equal to Grav Const / Specific heat. And it can be computed using enthalpy as part of the calculation.That does not explain where the surface EM radiation goes. Your brand of alternate physics simply fails.

You got your answer...sorry it challenges what you believe...it does, however, explain the 16,000 W/m2...the greenhouse hypothesis misses by a mile...according to the greenhouse hypothesis, ever doubling of CO2 will cause the temperature to increase by about 3 degrees and change...18 doublings of CO2 would give you a similar concentration of CO2 here as on Venus...if each doubling raises the temperature by 3 degrees, how much would 18 doublings raise the temperature? Is that number anything like the actual temperature on venus? Anything at all? There is the abject failure of your greenhouse hypothesis.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

I would not provide the reason for the 16,000 W/m2 on venus till such time as he stated in plain english what the SB equation says...he finally did and I posted the information he wanted immediately. What makes you so dishonest?

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.

But you reneged on your promise to say where the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation goes. I understand perfectly why you changed the subject to the green house hypothesis. You simply can't answer where the 16,000 W/m² goes because you know it doesn't all go to outer space and you refuse to believe it becomes thermal kinetic energy in the lower atmosphere.

You are being dishonest to put it mildly. You simply can't answer the question without having your fake science make you look like a fool.

.

 

[IanC]

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

The equation does not tell us the rate of warming or cooling. That is the problem, and why it is difficult to pin SSDD down on his claims.

 

[SSDD]

[
The only reason I said a colder background is because you said you were calling Tc colder.

What do you think the "c" denotes? Here is a clue...cold starts with a "c".

Been through this all before...you lost then...refer to any of the multiple times this has been discussed.

 

[SSDD]

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

The equation does not tell us the rate of warming or cooling. That is the problem, and why it is difficult to pin SSDD down on his claims.

I never said that it did...although that can be determined...just not via the SB law...but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator...

 

[Wuwei]

but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator.

Nope. False. Fake science. Lie. Trolling. Whatever.

.

 

[SSDD]

but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator.

Nope. False. Fake science. Lie. Trolling. Whatever.

.

Sorry you are so uninformed...refer to the numerous other times you lost this point..

 

[Crick]

He has never lost this point. You have; clearly and demonstrably.

 

[Wuwei]

but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator.

Nope. False. Fake science. Lie. Trolling. Whatever.

Sorry you are so uninformed...refer to the numerous other times you lost this point..

No, you are a troll and a liar. There is absolutely no science text that agrees with you, and you know it. Read the last paragraph for the real science. Your fake science is inconsistent with the rest of physics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Was reading some materials today on how the Aurora Borialis was affected during the LIA.

The thinning atmosphere lowers the threshold of atmosphere susceptible to electromagnetic interference to 70-75 deg longitude. This makes the atmospheric event observable to 45th parallel.

Just one more correlation and hard physical observations to add into how our planet reacts to low solar output.

Auroral Evidence of Upcoming Mini or Little Ice Age?

"The auroral ring expands and contracts as the cold air dome expands and contracts. This means when the Aurora is seen closer to the Equator there is cold pervading the Northern hemisphere. This is the situation of the last several years. It is accentuated by the change of pattern in the Rossby Waves along the Polar Front from low to high amplitude Waves. It results in more extreme outbreaks of cold air pushing further toward the Equator and warm air penetrating further to the Pole as the cold air moves out of the way."

 

[SSDD]

but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator.

Nope. False. Fake science. Lie. Trolling. Whatever.

Sorry you are so uninformed...refer to the numerous other times you lost this point..

No, you are a troll and a liar. There is absolutely no science text that agrees with you, and you know it. Read the last paragraph for the real science. Your fake science is inconsistent with the rest of physics.

All bullshit all the time with you isn't it...oh so tedious.. By the way..

 

[Wuwei]

All bullshit all the time with you isn't it...oh so tedious.. By the way..

I didn't invent the SB equation and it's derivation. Why don't you blame your ennui on Stefan and Boltzman. Shout to the winds that S and B are full of bullshit. They are the ones giving you agonizing tedium. Write nasty letters to all major physics departments across the world. It will make you feel better and maybe relieve some of your tedium.