The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.

First, they are hardly countless. Exaggerating hardly lends you credibility. Second, the instrumentation in those experiments was invariably cooled. One would expect to see warmer materials radiating towards cooler instruments every time it is done.

And again...if those experiments demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics was wrong in its statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, don't you think that they would have prompted a change in the law itself?...rather than leaving goobs like you to try and whine your way into making people believe that the 2nd law, as stated is incorrect?

I'm not talking about thermodynamics. It's about accelerating charges radiating Read the post again.

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

 

[SSDD]

you are suggesting that the opinion provided by some unknown 3rd party regarding his belief on the 2nd law is required in order to give the full meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself?

Nope. That is just one source out of many that says the "energy" in the second law is net energy. That is agreed by 372000 physicists. Maybe you should continue your chat with Allen Eltor.

The key word there is "says". How valuable is what someone "says" in science? Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?

 

[IanC]

Where is your tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result if what you believe were true? Reality doesn't, and never will support you ian...

For CO2, the hotspot is at two metres, the mean free path. The surface temperatures are actually air temperatures taken at 1.5-2.0 metres so it isnot really detectable by using standard temperature records.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd I want to talk to you about your beliefs that a

cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.

And that the cold, light blocking refrigerants in the

cold nitrogen bath
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater.

Having examined your Church's teachings, I already know you wish the cold, light blocking gases refrigerating the cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet, called the GHGs, were a magical heater; and that their presence in the atmosphere "Dun made uh coald bathuh heedur yaW" .... to quote the official literature.

Have you any evidence in the history of all thermodynamics, in which application of a cold nitrogen bath pressurized to 14.whatever lbs/sq/in mean atmospheric pressure @ sea level is,
to a light warmed rock
resulted in the temperature of that rock rising 33 degrees
instead of LOWERING as per thermodynamical laws regarding temperature and energy concentration?

You need to show me one instance in all thermodynamics of application of a cold nitrogen bath to a rock, making the temperature of the rock rise.

When you don't show me that you're going to be the desperately idiotic fake I'm telling everyone now I know you are,
because you're in here claiming you think a cold nitrogen atmosphere, is a magical heater, being heated by the cold light blocking refrigerants responsible for chilling the surface of the Earth.

Be prepared to defend that or you're gonna wish you could.

Now.

You also believe the cold nitrogen bath's light blocking refrigerant class gases,
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater,

being responsible for the cold nitrogen bath's temperature warming the planet 33 degrees.

I already told you be ready to defend the "a cold nitrogen bath turned into a heater" claim.

Next you need to return here prepared to discuss your belief the cold light blocking refrigerant class GHGs,
are the core of the cold nitrogen heater,
making the cold nitrogen bath, heat the planet 33 degrees.

How are cold light blocking refrigerants, the REASON a cold nitrogen bath's a heater. Be ready to tell me that.

You need to show me one instance of cold light blocking refrigerants added to an otherwise normal cold nitrogen bath, conduction chilling a light warmed rock, making the temperature of the object being chilled, suddenly rising "33 degrees warmer than if the cold light blocking nitrogen bath wasn't there."

That's your church's teaching so I want you to defend it so I don't laugh in your thermodynamically befuddled, hick face. And it needs to be crystal clear and obey Conservation of Energy to the last letter and significant digit. If you come here and you can't defend that, like I told you, you're gonna damned sure wish you could.

Next I'm going to show everyone here what a general purpose therm-0-billy incompetent HicK you are.

Tell me the name of the law written for solving temperatures of gases, hence atmospheres.

Write the equation of the law here and tell these readers what the letters of the equation stand for.

Tell these readers why the law was written and what it's known for doing, that makes the law so important.

Tell me what the parts of the law are.

Tell me what each part of the law does, that MAKES the law, MANDATORY for solving the temperatures of gases.

When you get done with those questions I'm going to have some more to ask you that are going to show everyone even more, what an insufferably stupid brainwashed fake and internet poseur you are,

and everybody in this thread is going to laugh like somebody passed around the nitrous, at the dentist's office. Well except you. You're gonna dread seeing me like I'm pulling all your teeth with no anesthetic.

We saved the laughing gas for ourselves, so we can enjoy watching you squirm like a single-digits I.Q. thermobilly hick who thought a

cold nitrogen bath
got
turned into a heater
because
cold light blocking
insulating refrigerants

were added.

I'll be back in a few hours you need to have these questions answered.

You need some fair warning so here are the other questions regarding the Law governing gas temps.

You need to return here prepared to talk about the section of the law you think assigns CO2 an internal energy constant equal to or higher than Earths. This as you know is called the "Specific Heat" of a gas, and you need to show me YOUR PERSONALLY FOUND CHART showing me CO2 having INTERNAL ENERGY
not LOWER
than AIR.

You are here telling people you think CO2 warms air. You need to show these readers a chart of thermodynamic law containing the Specific Heat for CO2 t
hat is higher than that of Air.

Or you're gonna wish you could when I start mocking you to your face for being too stupid to even know what law of physics you thought you were talking about.

Next you need to be able to explain to me why you and your church

can't calculate the temperature of the planet properly.

When you magic gas barking hicks claim to calculate the global temperature of our atmosphere you come up 33 degrees short and don't match the PROPER temperature,

which is etched into the stone of international physical regulatory and calibration Law, in the form of the well known - well, it's well known to real mathematicians, physicists and chemists such as myself -

International Standard Atmosphere.

Since you're so stupid you think a cold bath's a heater, you don't know what that is.

Calculated in 1864 by the French the International Standard Atmosphere is at the source ultimately, of almost every single measurement made by mankind, that involves a manufactured instrument,
motor,
engine,
aircraft or spacecraft part,
oven,
stove,
light, - anything that can be regulated, or sold, or warrantied against liability has a system of known parameters
all certified within guaranteed

Atmospheric temperature, composition, pressure, and humidity ranges.

You need to explain to me so everybody here isn't laughing in your illiterate, innumerate face
why your church leadership's CALCULATIONS don't MATCH the ACTUAL temperature of the Atmosphere.

We're still talking about the law of mathematics and physics governing this, shoe salesman. If you don't come here with proper answers everyone can agree on regarding something as simple as a cold bath and a light warmed rock, you're going to continue to bat zero questions properly answered by you.

Again: This planet's global Atmospheric temperature was first discovered by whom?

The modern well known temperature of our atmosphere, that all our instruments are calibrated against,
so all our planes fly, and our submarines act properly, and our global commercial instruments all work,
who discovered the Atmosphere's temperature today?

And why is that important? What is the relationship of the modern temperature and the temperature of the atmosphere the first time someone actually calcualted it's temperature? I'm gonna wanna talk about that,
so be ready. This is all DIRECTLY related to the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS written for SOLVING the TEMPERATURE of the global Atmosphere.

Your church says a nitrogen bath is a heater, you need to show us all one in all of history.

Your church taught you cold light blocking refrigerants make a cold bath a heater.

Show me and everyone, one instance of
cold
light blocking,
insulating refrigerants, added to cold nitrogen baths,
making the cold nitrogen bath,turn into a heater.

You say the Earth is 33 degrees warmer due to GHGs
so it's important isn't it?

All those other elements of Earth Atmospheric global temperature I expect you to be able to discuss with me at length, fluently.

I was reading along and of course the instant you claimed a cold nitrogen bath was a heater, and that the cold light blocking refrigerants
chilling the bath
and sun warmed rock the bath chills,
are the magical core of said cold nitrogen heater,

and of course knew instantly you're utterly innumerate, utterly illiterate, and unable to even tell someone if a cold bath is a cooler or a heater.

When I come back you had better have some answers for me or I'm gonna drag you back and forth in front of these people like the stupid bovine hick you are. And you're gonna LOVE it.

Ciao, and I'll be back soon. Be prepared to discuss your claims, or I'm gonna discuss them for you.

cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.

Who said that? Where? Link?

 

[Allen Eltor]

When RADIATION is the SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS
TEMPERATURES are by DEFINITION the HIGHEST they can ever BE with the same LIGHT load.

How am I supposed to respond to such garbled gibberish? Tighten up your thinking

The WAY you're supposed to RESPOND, is GO BACK to SCHOOL.

ANY OBJECT
whose SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS is : R.A.D.I.A.N.T. you ignorant double-digit i.q. QUACK
is BY DEFINITION
at the HIGHEST temperature
a LIGHT can BRING it to.

This is PART of the WORKING RADIATION ENGINEER'S EVERYDAY BREAD and BUTTER.

When there is ANY other MODE of COOLING PROVIDED
the AMOUNT of cooling goes UP
and TEMPERATURE goes DOWN.

Listen to me KooK: this is one of THE defining ASPECTS of RADIANT-ONLY cooling.

Objects thus RADIATING into vacuum
are DEFINITIONALLY at their HIGHEST possible TEMPERATURE
for THAT volume of ENERGY coming IN and OUT.

D.E.F.I.N.I.T.I.O.N.A.L.L.Y, DiPSTiCK.

It's PART of the RADIATION PHYSICIST'S
LONGER-THAN-ABBREVIATED-DICTIONARY

DEFINITION of the MATTER-ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS of OBJECTS in VACUUM.

 

[Wuwei]

Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?

Not an opinion; It's the science of over 372 thousand physicists.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Todd I want to talk to you about your beliefs that a

cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.

And that the cold, light blocking refrigerants in the

cold nitrogen bath
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater.

Having examined your Church's teachings, I already know you wish the cold, light blocking gases refrigerating the cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet, called the GHGs, were a magical heater; and that their presence in the atmosphere "Dun made uh coald bathuh heedur yaW" .... to quote the official literature.

Have you any evidence in the history of all thermodynamics, in which application of a cold nitrogen bath pressurized to 14.whatever lbs/sq/in mean atmospheric pressure @ sea level is,
to a light warmed rock
resulted in the temperature of that rock rising 33 degrees
instead of LOWERING as per thermodynamical laws regarding temperature and energy concentration?

You need to show me one instance in all thermodynamics of application of a cold nitrogen bath to a rock, making the temperature of the rock rise.

When you don't show me that you're going to be the desperately idiotic fake I'm telling everyone now I know you are,
because you're in here claiming you think a cold nitrogen atmosphere, is a magical heater, being heated by the cold light blocking refrigerants responsible for chilling the surface of the Earth.

Be prepared to defend that or you're gonna wish you could.

Now.

You also believe the cold nitrogen bath's light blocking refrigerant class gases,
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater,

being responsible for the cold nitrogen bath's temperature warming the planet 33 degrees.

I already told you be ready to defend the "a cold nitrogen bath turned into a heater" claim.

Next you need to return here prepared to discuss your belief the cold light blocking refrigerant class GHGs,
are the core of the cold nitrogen heater,
making the cold nitrogen bath, heat the planet 33 degrees.

How are cold light blocking refrigerants, the REASON a cold nitrogen bath's a heater. Be ready to tell me that.

You need to show me one instance of cold light blocking refrigerants added to an otherwise normal cold nitrogen bath, conduction chilling a light warmed rock, making the temperature of the object being chilled, suddenly rising "33 degrees warmer than if the cold light blocking nitrogen bath wasn't there."

That's your church's teaching so I want you to defend it so I don't laugh in your thermodynamically befuddled, hick face. And it needs to be crystal clear and obey Conservation of Energy to the last letter and significant digit. If you come here and you can't defend that, like I told you, you're gonna damned sure wish you could.

Next I'm going to show everyone here what a general purpose therm-0-billy incompetent HicK you are.

Tell me the name of the law written for solving temperatures of gases, hence atmospheres.

Write the equation of the law here and tell these readers what the letters of the equation stand for.

Tell these readers why the law was written and what it's known for doing, that makes the law so important.

Tell me what the parts of the law are.

Tell me what each part of the law does, that MAKES the law, MANDATORY for solving the temperatures of gases.

When you get done with those questions I'm going to have some more to ask you that are going to show everyone even more, what an insufferably stupid brainwashed fake and internet poseur you are,

and everybody in this thread is going to laugh like somebody passed around the nitrous, at the dentist's office. Well except you. You're gonna dread seeing me like I'm pulling all your teeth with no anesthetic.

We saved the laughing gas for ourselves, so we can enjoy watching you squirm like a single-digits I.Q. thermobilly hick who thought a

cold nitrogen bath
got
turned into a heater
because
cold light blocking
insulating refrigerants

were added.

I'll be back in a few hours you need to have these questions answered.

You need some fair warning so here are the other questions regarding the Law governing gas temps.

You need to return here prepared to talk about the section of the law you think assigns CO2 an internal energy constant equal to or higher than Earths. This as you know is called the "Specific Heat" of a gas, and you need to show me YOUR PERSONALLY FOUND CHART showing me CO2 having INTERNAL ENERGY
not LOWER
than AIR.

You are here telling people you think CO2 warms air. You need to show these readers a chart of thermodynamic law containing the Specific Heat for CO2 t
hat is higher than that of Air.

Or you're gonna wish you could when I start mocking you to your face for being too stupid to even know what law of physics you thought you were talking about.

Next you need to be able to explain to me why you and your church

can't calculate the temperature of the planet properly.

When you magic gas barking hicks claim to calculate the global temperature of our atmosphere you come up 33 degrees short and don't match the PROPER temperature,

which is etched into the stone of international physical regulatory and calibration Law, in the form of the well known - well, it's well known to real mathematicians, physicists and chemists such as myself -

International Standard Atmosphere.

Since you're so stupid you think a cold bath's a heater, you don't know what that is.

Calculated in 1864 by the French the International Standard Atmosphere is at the source ultimately, of almost every single measurement made by mankind, that involves a manufactured instrument,
motor,
engine,
aircraft or spacecraft part,
oven,
stove,
light, - anything that can be regulated, or sold, or warrantied against liability has a system of known parameters
all certified within guaranteed

Atmospheric temperature, composition, pressure, and humidity ranges.

You need to explain to me so everybody here isn't laughing in your illiterate, innumerate face
why your church leadership's CALCULATIONS don't MATCH the ACTUAL temperature of the Atmosphere.

We're still talking about the law of mathematics and physics governing this, shoe salesman. If you don't come here with proper answers everyone can agree on regarding something as simple as a cold bath and a light warmed rock, you're going to continue to bat zero questions properly answered by you.

Again: This planet's global Atmospheric temperature was first discovered by whom?

The modern well known temperature of our atmosphere, that all our instruments are calibrated against,
so all our planes fly, and our submarines act properly, and our global commercial instruments all work,
who discovered the Atmosphere's temperature today?

And why is that important? What is the relationship of the modern temperature and the temperature of the atmosphere the first time someone actually calcualted it's temperature? I'm gonna wanna talk about that,
so be ready. This is all DIRECTLY related to the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS written for SOLVING the TEMPERATURE of the global Atmosphere.

Your church says a nitrogen bath is a heater, you need to show us all one in all of history.

Your church taught you cold light blocking refrigerants make a cold bath a heater.

Show me and everyone, one instance of
cold
light blocking,
insulating refrigerants, added to cold nitrogen baths,
making the cold nitrogen bath,turn into a heater.

You say the Earth is 33 degrees warmer due to GHGs
so it's important isn't it?

All those other elements of Earth Atmospheric global temperature I expect you to be able to discuss with me at length, fluently.

I was reading along and of course the instant you claimed a cold nitrogen bath was a heater, and that the cold light blocking refrigerants
chilling the bath
and sun warmed rock the bath chills,
are the magical core of said cold nitrogen heater,

and of course knew instantly you're utterly innumerate, utterly illiterate, and unable to even tell someone if a cold bath is a cooler or a heater.

When I come back you had better have some answers for me or I'm gonna drag you back and forth in front of these people like the stupid bovine hick you are. And you're gonna LOVE it.

Ciao, and I'll be back soon. Be prepared to discuss your claims, or I'm gonna discuss them for you.

cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.

Who said that? Where? Link?

Your CHURCH teaches you the COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE WARMS the PLANET, 33 DEGREES.

If it's not YOUR CHURCH and you don't BELIEVE that stupid sh** - then you've got nothin to be scared of.

 

[Wuwei]

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?

Not an opinion; It's the science of over 372 thousand physicists.

There was "Critical Research University Scientific Peer Review" and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of PhDs and Masters' and Bachelors' in

MEDICINE who were willing to go to COURT and testify that "Pot is like Heroin and worse for you than methyl amphetamines. It's devil weed and if we don't all get on opioids and off pot, pot is gonna make some of us get on opioids."

A billion communists are still deluded, dark-ages fanatics.

I dunno the exact thing you two are aguing about but your appeal to authority's worthless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T for greater temperature minus lower temperature. Where do you add back the imaginary heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one

It's magic. It is interesting how these guys will just interpret a straight forward statement, or a simple equation to mean whatever they want it to mean as if that were acceptable science. And then howl like zealots at anyone who doesn't join them in their faith.

It's interesting that you have no sources that back up your claims about one way flow of radiation.

What is more interesting is that the sources others provide (since you rarely provide anything more than droll one liners) don't agree with the second law of thermodynamics. If they are correct and you by association, why has the statement of the second law of thermodynamics not been changed?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

What is more interesting is that the sources others provide (since you rarely provide anything more than droll one liners) don't agree with the second law of thermodynamics.

Which sources don't agree with the 2nd Law?
The Handbook of Modern Sensors?

Now that was hilarious!

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

We're not talking about heat, we're talking about radiation. Don't understand the difference?

So, my home in Chicago in the winter is 20F.
Now I crank up the furnace to warm my home, does the furnace do work while warming my home?

 

[Allen Eltor]

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.

Stop speaking like an idiot. Thermodynamics are the sciences documenting ALL THINGS. X-rays are part of THERMODYNAMICS. Syncrotrons emit energy that is ALSO: PART of THERMODYNAMICS.

How can you people say these KooK-a-Zoid things? there ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T PART of THERMODYNAMICS?

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST and SECOND and so on, LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS? The word strings you're putting together are PREPOSTEROUS.

 

[IanC]

Showing me an unfinished equation hardly supports your argument. Do you see the equation after the last equals sign....e sigma (T^4 - Tc^4)? That is the finished eauation...and it doesn't state net anything...it describes a gross one way energy flow...you can right net as much as you like, but the final equation after all the equals signs is what matters and it doesn't calculate net anything.. Your math skills, and understanding of math is laughable...

Read the first two equations in the derivation again. You are acting like a troll again.

A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.

Stefan used a cavity experiment to measure the radiation coming off a material, for different temperatures. He used that data and found a relationship for radiation with temperature (in Kelvins) raised to the fourth power.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T for greater temperature minus lower temperature. Where do you add back the imaginary heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one

It's magic. It is interesting how these guys will just interpret a straight forward statement, or a simple equation to mean whatever they want it to mean as if that were acceptable science. And then howl like zealots at anyone who doesn't join them in their faith.

It's interesting that you have no sources that back up your claims about one way flow of radiation.

Actually I provided some above...and then there is always the second law of thermodynamics which states my position very explicitly.


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now if you believe that radiation is not energy.....or is somehow exempt because the second law doesn't explicitly name every sort of energy there is then go ahead and say it so we can proceed to laugh you right off the board...because it is clear that you believe that radiation is either not energy, or is somehow exempt from the second law which states clearly that energy can not flow spontaneously from cool to warm...and radiation is defined as energy emitted in particles or waves...radiation is energy and the second law covers all energy in any form....so tell us specifically what you believe radiation to be and how you believe it is exempt from the second law....go ahead...say it..

Actually I provided some above...and then there is always the second law of thermodynamics which states my position very explicitly.

No, you have never provided a source that explicitly says radiation only flows one way.
You have never provided a source that explicitly says radiation only flows from warm to cold.

 

[Wuwei]

A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.

Stefan used a cavity experiment to measure the radiation coming off a material, for different temperatures. He used that data and found a relationship for radiation with temperature (in Kelvins) raised to the fourth power.

Right. I looked at Stefan's original paper. He cited the first two equations and combined them to get the third. I don't remember if he was fully aware of the significance of that, but certainly Boltzmann and Kirchhoff were.

 

[IanC]

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.

Stop speaking like an idiot. Thermodynamics are the sciences documenting ALL THINGS. X-rays are part of THERMODYNAMICS. Syncrotrons emit energy that is ALSO: PART of THERMODYNAMICS.

How can you people say these KooK-a-Zoid things? there ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T PART of THERMODYNAMICS?

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST and SECOND and so on, LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS? The word strings you're putting together are PREPOSTEROUS.

Actually, you are the idiot. Moving electric charges create radiation. SSDD says that radiation can be nullified by simply having a warm object near by. Or even just in the universe, he is clear most of the time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T for greater temperature minus lower temperature. Where do you add back the imaginary heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma (

), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

What is Stefan-Boltzmann constant? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Power emitted. Not heat.

So does heat radiates from cooler to warm?

Plug in the temperature of the cool object.
That tells you how much it radiates.

Now plug in the temperature of the warm object.
That tells you how much it radiates.

You see, they both radiate at the same time.

But the formula states, e.g. 200F- 100F = 100F, it's all one way. There's no heat flowing upstream.

But the formula states, e.g. 200F- 100F = 100F, it's all one way.

The formula does not state one way.

There's no heat flowing upstream.

Who said anything about heat? We're discussing radiation. Power emitted.

 

[IanC]

A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.

Stefan used a cavity experiment to measure the radiation coming off a material, for different temperatures. He used that data and found a relationship for radiation with temperature (in Kelvins) raised to the fourth power.

Right. I looked at Stefan's original paper. He cited the first two equations and combined them to get the third. I don't remember if he was fully aware of the significance of that, but certainly Boltzmann and Kirchhoff were.

The cavity experiment was a wonderfully clever idea. The emission and absorption must be equal.

 

[IanC]

I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T for greater temperature minus lower temperature. Where do you add back the imaginary heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma (

), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

What is Stefan-Boltzmann constant? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Power emitted. Not heat.

So does heat radiates from cooler to warm?

Plug in the temperature of the cool object.
That tells you how much it radiates.

Now plug in the temperature of the warm object.
That tells you how much it radiates.

You see, they both radiate at the same time.

But the formula states, e.g. 200F- 100F = 100F, it's all one way. There's no heat flowing upstream.

But the formula states, e.g. 200F- 100F = 100F, it's all one way.

The formula does not state one way.

There's no heat flowing upstream.

Who said anything about heat? We're discussing radiation. Power emitted.

Exactly. CF also failed by using Farenheit rather than Kelvin. And the Temperature must be raised to the fourth power before subtracting. Andif there are two objects then there are two sets of radiation. Radiation only reacts with matter, not other radiation, therefore once emitted it must reach its destination.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd I want to talk to you about your beliefs that a

cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.

And that the cold, light blocking refrigerants in the

cold nitrogen bath
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater.

Having examined your Church's teachings, I already know you wish the cold, light blocking gases refrigerating the cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet, called the GHGs, were a magical heater; and that their presence in the atmosphere "Dun made uh coald bathuh heedur yaW" .... to quote the official literature.

Have you any evidence in the history of all thermodynamics, in which application of a cold nitrogen bath pressurized to 14.whatever lbs/sq/in mean atmospheric pressure @ sea level is,
to a light warmed rock
resulted in the temperature of that rock rising 33 degrees
instead of LOWERING as per thermodynamical laws regarding temperature and energy concentration?

You need to show me one instance in all thermodynamics of application of a cold nitrogen bath to a rock, making the temperature of the rock rise.

When you don't show me that you're going to be the desperately idiotic fake I'm telling everyone now I know you are,
because you're in here claiming you think a cold nitrogen atmosphere, is a magical heater, being heated by the cold light blocking refrigerants responsible for chilling the surface of the Earth.

Be prepared to defend that or you're gonna wish you could.

Now.

You also believe the cold nitrogen bath's light blocking refrigerant class gases,
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater,

being responsible for the cold nitrogen bath's temperature warming the planet 33 degrees.

I already told you be ready to defend the "a cold nitrogen bath turned into a heater" claim.

Next you need to return here prepared to discuss your belief the cold light blocking refrigerant class GHGs,
are the core of the cold nitrogen heater,
making the cold nitrogen bath, heat the planet 33 degrees.

How are cold light blocking refrigerants, the REASON a cold nitrogen bath's a heater. Be ready to tell me that.

You need to show me one instance of cold light blocking refrigerants added to an otherwise normal cold nitrogen bath, conduction chilling a light warmed rock, making the temperature of the object being chilled, suddenly rising "33 degrees warmer than if the cold light blocking nitrogen bath wasn't there."

That's your church's teaching so I want you to defend it so I don't laugh in your thermodynamically befuddled, hick face. And it needs to be crystal clear and obey Conservation of Energy to the last letter and significant digit. If you come here and you can't defend that, like I told you, you're gonna damned sure wish you could.

Next I'm going to show everyone here what a general purpose therm-0-billy incompetent HicK you are.

Tell me the name of the law written for solving temperatures of gases, hence atmospheres.

Write the equation of the law here and tell these readers what the letters of the equation stand for.

Tell these readers why the law was written and what it's known for doing, that makes the law so important.

Tell me what the parts of the law are.

Tell me what each part of the law does, that MAKES the law, MANDATORY for solving the temperatures of gases.

When you get done with those questions I'm going to have some more to ask you that are going to show everyone even more, what an insufferably stupid brainwashed fake and internet poseur you are,

and everybody in this thread is going to laugh like somebody passed around the nitrous, at the dentist's office. Well except you. You're gonna dread seeing me like I'm pulling all your teeth with no anesthetic.

We saved the laughing gas for ourselves, so we can enjoy watching you squirm like a single-digits I.Q. thermobilly hick who thought a

cold nitrogen bath
got
turned into a heater
because
cold light blocking
insulating refrigerants

were added.

I'll be back in a few hours you need to have these questions answered.

You need some fair warning so here are the other questions regarding the Law governing gas temps.

You need to return here prepared to talk about the section of the law you think assigns CO2 an internal energy constant equal to or higher than Earths. This as you know is called the "Specific Heat" of a gas, and you need to show me YOUR PERSONALLY FOUND CHART showing me CO2 having INTERNAL ENERGY
not LOWER
than AIR.

You are here telling people you think CO2 warms air. You need to show these readers a chart of thermodynamic law containing the Specific Heat for CO2 t
hat is higher than that of Air.

Or you're gonna wish you could when I start mocking you to your face for being too stupid to even know what law of physics you thought you were talking about.

Next you need to be able to explain to me why you and your church

can't calculate the temperature of the planet properly.

When you magic gas barking hicks claim to calculate the global temperature of our atmosphere you come up 33 degrees short and don't match the PROPER temperature,

which is etched into the stone of international physical regulatory and calibration Law, in the form of the well known - well, it's well known to real mathematicians, physicists and chemists such as myself -

International Standard Atmosphere.

Since you're so stupid you think a cold bath's a heater, you don't know what that is.

Calculated in 1864 by the French the International Standard Atmosphere is at the source ultimately, of almost every single measurement made by mankind, that involves a manufactured instrument,
motor,
engine,
aircraft or spacecraft part,
oven,
stove,
light, - anything that can be regulated, or sold, or warrantied against liability has a system of known parameters
all certified within guaranteed

Atmospheric temperature, composition, pressure, and humidity ranges.

You need to explain to me so everybody here isn't laughing in your illiterate, innumerate face
why your church leadership's CALCULATIONS don't MATCH the ACTUAL temperature of the Atmosphere.

We're still talking about the law of mathematics and physics governing this, shoe salesman. If you don't come here with proper answers everyone can agree on regarding something as simple as a cold bath and a light warmed rock, you're going to continue to bat zero questions properly answered by you.

Again: This planet's global Atmospheric temperature was first discovered by whom?

The modern well known temperature of our atmosphere, that all our instruments are calibrated against,
so all our planes fly, and our submarines act properly, and our global commercial instruments all work,
who discovered the Atmosphere's temperature today?

And why is that important? What is the relationship of the modern temperature and the temperature of the atmosphere the first time someone actually calcualted it's temperature? I'm gonna wanna talk about that,
so be ready. This is all DIRECTLY related to the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS written for SOLVING the TEMPERATURE of the global Atmosphere.

Your church says a nitrogen bath is a heater, you need to show us all one in all of history.

Your church taught you cold light blocking refrigerants make a cold bath a heater.

Show me and everyone, one instance of
cold
light blocking,
insulating refrigerants, added to cold nitrogen baths,
making the cold nitrogen bath,turn into a heater.

You say the Earth is 33 degrees warmer due to GHGs
so it's important isn't it?

All those other elements of Earth Atmospheric global temperature I expect you to be able to discuss with me at length, fluently.

I was reading along and of course the instant you claimed a cold nitrogen bath was a heater, and that the cold light blocking refrigerants
chilling the bath
and sun warmed rock the bath chills,
are the magical core of said cold nitrogen heater,

and of course knew instantly you're utterly innumerate, utterly illiterate, and unable to even tell someone if a cold bath is a cooler or a heater.

When I come back you had better have some answers for me or I'm gonna drag you back and forth in front of these people like the stupid bovine hick you are. And you're gonna LOVE it.

Ciao, and I'll be back soon. Be prepared to discuss your claims, or I'm gonna discuss them for you.

cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.

Who said that? Where? Link?

Your CHURCH teaches you the COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE WARMS the PLANET, 33 DEGREES.

If it's not YOUR CHURCH and you don't BELIEVE that stupid sh** - then you've got nothin to be scared of.

No link?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.

Are you implying that the surface would be warmer (on average) without an atmosphere? Hahaha

Bonus points to anyone who can give the simple mathematical reason why an atmosphere increases the average surface temperature.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Global Warming​