We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Did you notice, it doesn't say, "Unless a warmer object is nearby, in that case it stops radiating" It also failed to say, "Unless an object above 0K is nearby, in which case it emits more slowly"

They assume you can grasp the equation one uses when the radiator is not a perfect black body in a vacuum at 0 degrees K....in which P decreases as the difference between T and Tc decreases till P = 0.


Again...sorry this is all so difficult for you to understand.

rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Again, no caveats...sorry this is all so difficult for you to understand

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

thermodynamic theory says every object of sufficient size gives off radiation proportional to its temperature. there is no arbitrary choice of whether to radiate or not.

When the object is a black body in a vacuum at 0 degrees K. You guys always fail to mention that fact. Once you are no longer talking about a black body and it is out of the vacuum and the surroundings are above 0 degrees K...the equation clearly shows that things begin to change,

in the special case where both the object and the surroundings are the same temperature, both continue to fully radiate according to their temperature but the power is zero because they are both gaining energy as fast as they are radiating it away.

Yeah....heard it before. The thing is though, that according to the SB law, P does not represent "net" energy flow.

SSDD purposely confuses the basic principle of 'every object radiates according to its temperature' with the equation for Power/energy transfer that is dependent on a temperature differential. he declares that the power describes the actual radiation, eg the warmer object emits less than the basic principle demands and the cooler object doesnt radiate at all.

The Stefan Boltzmann Law

The Stefan-Boltzman Law for Black Body Radiation

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf

Here is an informative clip from that last one

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Note that the SB law is, in fact, talking about rates of outward radiative energy....not net energy flows or any other addendum you would care to add to the law in an effort to make it support your beliefs. Simply rate of outward energy flow....no more...no less.

SSDD cannot let go of this folly because if he did then his worldview of thermodynamics would fall apart.

It isn't me, Ian, who is adding words like net, and statistical to the actual statements of the law in an effort to support my argument...that is you and yours. I am satisfied with the laws as they are stated and until you and yours actually prove that they are wrong, they will remain as they are and state what they state and you will still be making statements that don't agree with the laws. When QM actually proves that energy movement is a net proposition, the laws of thermodynamics will be changed and rewritten to reflect that proof. As of now, they don't which makes me right and you wrong.

Page 16 of your lecture link shows energy emitted by cloudy atmosphere toward Earth (+67) and energy emitted by cloudless atmosphere toward Earth (+34).

 

[SSDD]

Think of a small area element at the surface of the sun: It emits radiation with the intensity of
B(T)
in all direction, thereby producing a total energy flux of 4
B(T), where 4 is the total solid angle of a sphere enclosing that area element. Note, however, that a half of this energy flux goes back into the interior of the sun.

Holy crap! Energy moving from cooler to hotter.
And from his own link.

Again...you are introducing work into the equation....the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm....that precludes back radiation...and instead of endless mind games...why don't you think of providing some actual observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....oh...that's right...there are none so you are left with endless mind experiments that remain unobservable...unmeasurable...and untestable...

 

[SSDD]

Page 16 of your lecture link shows energy emitted by cloudy atmosphere toward Earth (+67) and energy emitted by cloudless atmosphere toward Earth (+34).

And if the figure for the radiation emitted from the surface of the earth is higher than either of those numbers, no energy will move to the surface of the earth....P is greater than 0 so long as T is greater than Tc.

Again...so very sorry that this all is so difficult for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Think of a small area element at the surface of the sun: It emits radiation with the intensity of
B(T)
in all direction, thereby producing a total energy flux of 4
B(T), where 4 is the total solid angle of a sphere enclosing that area element. Note, however, that a half of this energy flux goes back into the interior of the sun.

Holy crap! Energy moving from cooler to hotter.
And from his own link.

Again...you are introducing work into the equation....the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm....that precludes back radiation...and instead of endless mind games...why don't you think of providing some actual observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....oh...that's right...there are none so you are left with endless mind experiments that remain unobservable...unmeasurable...and untestable...

Again...you are introducing work into the equation....the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm

Work? Are you claiming fusion at the surface of the sun causes energy to move from the cooler surface to the hotter core?

why don't you think of providing some actual observed, measured instance of energy moving

Why do I need to provide anything? I simply point out where your own source contradicts your silly claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Page 16 of your lecture link shows energy emitted by cloudy atmosphere toward Earth (+67) and energy emitted by cloudless atmosphere toward Earth (+34).

And if the figure for the radiation emitted from the surface of the earth is higher than either of those numbers, no energy will move to the surface of the earth....P is greater than 0 so long as T is greater than Tc.

Again...so very sorry that this all is so difficult for you.

And if the figure for the radiation emitted from the surface of the earth is higher than either of those numbers, no energy will move to the surface of the earth

But of course the surface emits more. So you're contradicting your own source, again.
Thanks for the laugh.

Again...so very sorry that this all is so difficult for you.

Pointing out your ignorance is not difficult at all.

 

[IanC]

Page 16 of your lecture link shows energy emitted by cloudy atmosphere toward Earth (+67) and energy emitted by cloudless atmosphere toward Earth (+34).

And if the figure for the radiation emitted from the surface of the earth is higher than either of those numbers, no energy will move to the surface of the earth....P is greater than 0 so long as T is greater than Tc.

Again...so very sorry that this all is so difficult for you.

And if the figure for the radiation emitted from the surface of the earth is higher than either of those numbers, no energy will move to the surface of the earth

But of course the surface emits more. So you're contradicting your own source, again.
Thanks for the laugh.

Again...so very sorry that this all is so difficult for you.

Pointing out your ignorance is not difficult at all.

hey Todd....was that an epic face plant putting up that lecture link or what? I was worried I'd piss myself I was laughing so hard.

 

[SSDD]

Work? Are you claiming fusion at the surface of the sun causes energy to move from the cooler surface to the hotter core?

Is your small area element powered?...if it is, then we are not talking about spontaneous energy movement..

Why do I need to provide anything? I simply point out where your own source contradicts your silly claim.

Your example didn't stipulate the temperature of the surface of the earth....so you didn't point out anything...if the energy radiated from the surface of the earth was greater than that radiated from the atmosphere...none of it was absorbed by the earth...you must have all the numbers to plug into the equation before you can claim anything more than an incomplete example.

 

[SSDD]

But of course the surface emits more. So you're contradicting your own source, again.
Thanks for the laugh.

Since the source never stipulated the amount being radiated from the surface...the equation was never completed...not sure what you are laughing at unless you find your own ignorance funny....I don't....it's a bit sad really.

 

[Crick]

What's it like to have dug yourself into a hole as deep as this one? Do you stay awake nights trying to dream up a way out?

 

[SSDD]

hey Todd....was that an epic face plant putting up that lecture link or what? I was worried I'd piss myself I was laughing so hard.

I see that you think an incomplete energy balance equation is funny also...that is very interesting...just for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the temperature of the temperature of the surface is greater than that of the atmosphere....within the SB equation for radiators other than black bodies not in a vacuum at 0 degrees K...how much radiation from the cooler atmosphere do you think reaches the surface of the earth?

 

[Crick]

Every bit that 's headed that way.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid. What's it like to have dug yourself into a hole as deep as this one? Do you stay awake nights trying to dream up a way out?

Sorry crick...the adults are talking...I can't help but note that you have had exactly zero to say regarding the actual math and physics that are being discussed here....we all know why. Are you now doing mammoths job for her...drive by sniping with no mention at all on the topic that is being discussed?

Feel free to actually join in and speak in your own words on the topic....everyone here knows that the chance of that is about zero....

 

[SSDD]

Every bit that 's headed that way.

Based on which part of the SB equations?

 

[Crick]

The topic of this particular thread, in my humble opinion, is itself a violation of the rules and should have been chopped at birth.

I tired of explaining to you what sort of idiocy it takes to hold the views on thermodynamics that you hold. Ian and Todd have been doing a bang up job in my stead. I've had thermodynamics and heat transfer. You, VERY obviously, have not. When you have, come back and apologize to us for making us suffer through your desperate cling to ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

The topic of this particular thread, in my humble opinion, is itself a violation of the rules and should have been chopped at birth.

Like I said...you really don't know what the hell we are talking about and just decided to do a bit of drive by sniping....We all know that you aren't going to engage on the topic....asking which part of the SB equation supported your claim was about as easy a question as I could have possibly asked and you....predictably....dodged.

I tired of explaining to you what sort of idiocy it takes to hold the views on thermodynamics that you hold.

More dishonesty on your part....we all know that you never "explain" anything. You often go grab a bit of cut and paste which rarely supports your claim or a graph which you can't read...but you never engage in any discussion of actual science or math in your own words and crick....we all know why.

Ian and Todd have been doing a bang up job in my stead.

You really wouldn't know would you...the fact that you can't point out which part of a very simple equation supports your claim regarding how much energy from the atmosphere would actually reach the earth literally screams that you don't know who is right and who is wrong on this....you believe that they are supporting your faith so you go with them...and that is about the extent of your contribution here....you fail to note that neither toddster nor Ian will step up and state which part of the equation supports their claim that the energy reaches the surface either....why you might ask?.....because the equations don't support that claim.

I've had thermodynamics and heat transfer.

You haven't had jack...your inability to actually discuss any subject regarding physics or mathematics makes that perfectly clear...the fact that you can't read and comprehend the simplest of graphs slams a great big exclamation point on the fact that you haven't had jack.

You, VERY obviously, have not. When you have, come back and apologize to us for making us suffer through your desperate cling to ignorance.

Unlike you, I am prepared to discuss the topic and use the laws concerned to support my claims...to date all that either toddster or Ian has rebutted me with is their own faith,....feel free to look back and bring forward any actual observed, measured examples of their claims....you will find none while every observation and measurement ever made supports my claim since I am merely stating the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law.

Now run along if you can't even answer the most simple mathematical question....you have no place here. mamooth is the resident inane sniper...we don't need another. Maybe you could wear a duck beak and big red shoes and do a happy dance or some such thing to provide comic relief.

 

[IanC]

hey Todd....was that an epic face plant putting up that lecture link or what? I was worried I'd piss myself I was laughing so hard.

I see that you think an incomplete energy balance equation is funny also...that is very interesting...just for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the temperature of the temperature of the surface is greater than that of the atmosphere....within the SB equation for radiators other than black bodies not in a vacuum at 0 degrees K...how much radiation from the cooler atmosphere do you think reaches the surface of the earth?

your question is kinda convoluted but....all of the radiation emitted towards the surface reaches the surface, unless some other particle gets in the way. the other half of the radiation goes up.

 

[SSDD]

hey Todd....was that an epic face plant putting up that lecture link or what? I was worried I'd piss myself I was laughing so hard.

I see that you think an incomplete energy balance equation is funny also...that is very interesting...just for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the temperature of the temperature of the surface is greater than that of the atmosphere....within the SB equation for radiators other than black bodies not in a vacuum at 0 degrees K...how much radiation from the cooler atmosphere do you think reaches the surface of the earth?

your question is kinda convoluted but....all of the radiation emitted towards the surface reaches the surface, unless some other particle gets in the way. the other half of the radiation goes up.

Sorry Ian, but it doesn't.. Here's the equation.....

First how much radiation is being emitted from the surface of the earth if there were no atmosphere...you will want to know that so you can see the amount of change.....then put the temperature of the surface of the earth in place of T....then put the temperature of the sky with or with out clouds in place of Tc...P is the amount of radiation being emitted from the surface of the earth....and again, the SB equation is all about outward bound radiation from the radiator...there is no net energy transfer....its all gross energy flows. You have no observation of net flows...you have no measurements of net flows...you have no proof of net flows...net flow is a theory that is unobservable.....unmeasurable...and untestable. The laws in question don't even mention net energy flows...

Either you can prove your point with the laws and equations as they are written and stated or you can't...if you can't then you fail. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Work? Are you claiming fusion at the surface of the sun causes energy to move from the cooler surface to the hotter core?

Is your small area element powered?...if it is, then we are not talking about spontaneous energy movement..

Why do I need to provide anything? I simply point out where your own source contradicts your silly claim.

Your example didn't stipulate the temperature of the surface of the earth....so you didn't point out anything...if the energy radiated from the surface of the earth was greater than that radiated from the atmosphere...none of it was absorbed by the earth...you must have all the numbers to plug into the equation before you can claim anything more than an incomplete example.

Is your small area element powered?...

Only if you think fusion takes place at the surface. Do you?

Your example didn't stipulate the temperature of the surface of the earth

My example? No, it was your example.

so you didn't point out anything...

I pointed out that your example showed back radiation.

if the energy radiated from the surface of the earth was greater than that radiated from the atmosphere...none of it was absorbed by the earth

Radiation from the atmosphere is magically different than other radiation and somehow is not absorbed? You make less sense every time you build upon your special theory.

you must have all the numbers to plug into the equation before you can claim anything more than an incomplete example

Your link didn't include a complete example?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But of course the surface emits more. So you're contradicting your own source, again.
Thanks for the laugh.

Since the source never stipulated the amount being radiated from the surface...the equation was never completed...not sure what you are laughing at unless you find your own ignorance funny....I don't....it's a bit sad really.

not sure what you are laughing

I'm laughing at your silly theory getting refuted by your own link.