We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is it?

You're the one with the unique interpretation of the 2nd Law.
And Stefan-Boltzmann. And relativity. You tell me.
And then explain why your links all contradict your claims.
Is the surface of the Sun powered? LOL!

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm but unsure as to whether heat is energy or an indicator that energy is moving from one place to another....how can you be so sure of one when you are clueless as to the other....answer = faith.

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm

For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:

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

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

You'll notice they use the phrase "net radiation loss".
And no mention of the radiation slowing or stopping when another object is nearby.

You may have noticed that none of your sources mention slowing or stopping.
In fact, your sources mention the cooler surface of the Sun radiating toward the hotter core.
They also mentioned our cooler atmosphere radiating toward the warmer surface of Earth.
In direct contradiction to your claim that back radiation does not exist.

....how can you be so sure of one

Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and all your sources said so.

 

[SSDD]

Which is it?

You're the one with the unique interpretation of the 2nd Law.
And Stefan-Boltzmann. And relativity. You tell me.
And then explain why your links all contradict your claims.
Is the surface of the Sun powered? LOL!

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm but unsure as to whether heat is energy or an indicator that energy is moving from one place to another....how can you be so sure of one when you are clueless as to the other....answer = faith.

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm

For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:

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

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

You'll notice they use the phrase "net radiation loss".
And no mention of the radiation slowing or stopping when another object is nearby.

You may have noticed that none of your sources mention slowing or stopping.
In fact, your sources mention the cooler surface of the Sun radiating toward the hotter core.
They also mentioned our cooler atmosphere radiating toward the warmer surface of Earth.
In direct contradiction to your claim that back radiation does not exist.

....how can you be so sure of one

Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and all your sources said so.

I am sure that you are unaware of this but when you calculate net loss of anything....your equation must show the amount of the thing coming in and the amount of the thing going out....Can you point out in the above equation where anything at all is gained? That equation shows P changing based on the difference between T and Tc....where do you see anything whatsoever about energy being gained in that equation.....there is only one term in that equation representing energy and it is for outgoing energy....where is the term for incoming energy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is it?

You're the one with the unique interpretation of the 2nd Law.
And Stefan-Boltzmann. And relativity. You tell me.
And then explain why your links all contradict your claims.
Is the surface of the Sun powered? LOL!

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm but unsure as to whether heat is energy or an indicator that energy is moving from one place to another....how can you be so sure of one when you are clueless as to the other....answer = faith.

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm

For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:

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

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

You'll notice they use the phrase "net radiation loss".
And no mention of the radiation slowing or stopping when another object is nearby.

You may have noticed that none of your sources mention slowing or stopping.
In fact, your sources mention the cooler surface of the Sun radiating toward the hotter core.
They also mentioned our cooler atmosphere radiating toward the warmer surface of Earth.
In direct contradiction to your claim that back radiation does not exist.

....how can you be so sure of one

Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and all your sources said so.

I am sure that you are unaware of this but when you calculate net loss of anything....your equation must show the amount of the thing coming in and the amount of the thing going out....Can you point out in the above equation where anything at all is gained? That equation shows P changing based on the difference between T and Tc....where do you see anything whatsoever about energy being gained in that equation.....there is only one term in that equation representing energy and it is for outgoing energy....where is the term for incoming energy?

The net energy out from the warmer object is the net energy into the cooler surroundings.
Why do you feel I would be unaware of that?

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

 

[IanC]

SSDD purposely ignores that two processes are going on at the same time. Both objects are radiating, the warmer one more than the cool one. For any period of time measured there is a net excess of radiation from warm to cool. You cannot separate the outcome of the two processes but you can calculate the individual strengths.

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool

This is now where SSDD says mathematics is wrong and the associative rule produces a tainted result.

You simply can't argue with SSDD on this. He has a blind spot that he will protect at all costs.

 

[Crick]

Several.

 

[SSDD]

The net energy out from the warmer object is the net energy into the cooler surroundings.
Why do you feel I would be unaware of that?

You don't seem to understand that the term net has a meaning....it is the total of something coming in minus the amount of something going out. The equation describes something going out...but doesn't describe anything coming in. I can have an output of anything from gas, to liquid, to solid, to electricity and do any number of things to alter the amount going out without ever altering the amount of that same thing coming in. The changes I make to the output are just that...changes to gross flow...in order to have a net flow...I need to alter the amount of whatever I have outgoing with an incoming amount.

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

Again...net means something...it isn't just a meaningless term thrown in....net is incoming minus outgoing...the SB equation in question only shows outgoing...where is the incoming term that would alter P from a simple statement of gross flow to a more complex term of gross flow?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD purposely ignores that two processes are going on at the same time. Both objects are radiating, the warmer one more than the cool one. For any period of time measured there is a net excess of radiation from warm to cool. You cannot separate the outcome of the two processes but you can calculate the individual strengths.

I am not ignoring anything...I am looking at the equations for what they are.... I believe you purposely ignore the fact that net has a specific meaning....net is incoming minus outgoing...or outgoing minus incoming...a statement of change in outgoing or incoming is a gross change. It is only a net change if there is a change in the amount of whatever I have incoming or outgoing as a result of some additional incoming or outgoing that would not be shown in a simple equation showing gross movement. P(+-)P1 =Twarm=Tcool is a statement of net change while P=Twarm=Tcool is a statement of gross change. The math is what it is Ian and as I have said all along...mathematical statements have meaning. Simply saying that something means net when the equations don't support your statement doesn't make them mean net.

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool

Saying net doesn't make it so till you show where you are altering P by some incoming energy...P = Twarm - Tcool is a statement of gross change....you need an addition to or a subtraction of something from P besides Twarm and Tcool in order to have a statement of net change rather than gross change. Just saying net doesn't make it net because net means something...unless you are saying that in climate science net doesn't mean incoming minus outgoing as it does in every other branch of science.

This is now where SSDD says mathematics is wrong and the associative rule produces a tainted result.

I am not wrong and you remain unable to prove that I am wrong...you simply say you are right and think that is enough to make you right.

You simply can't argue with SSDD on this. He has a blind spot that he will protect at all costs.

I am afraid that it is you who has the blind spot ian.....you can't see that there is a difference between P+P1=Twarm - Tcool which is a statement of net change in P.... and P=Twarm-Tcool which is a statement of gross change of P.

 

[SSDD]

Several.

As if you had a clue.

Maybe you would like to take a shot at showing where the incoming energy is shown in the equation which would alter the equation from a statement of gross energy flow to one of net energy flow. P=A-B is a statement of gross change where I have simply done something with A and B that results in less P......P(=-)P1=A-B is a statement of net change where P has been changed by gaining or losing something aside from the simple subtraction of A-B. In the SB equation...P is changed by the subtraction of T from Tc...that is a gross change in energy flow....in order to have a net change the equation would have to show P(=-)P1=T-Tc. There is a difference and one represents gross change while the other represents net change...words mean things.

 

[Crick]

I think it has been AMPLY demonstrated here that you are a complete idiot and there's simply no hope for you.

 

[SSDD]

I think it has been AMPLY demonstrated here that you are a complete idiot and there's simply no hope for you.

So you believe that given the equation P=Twarm-Tcool you get to just decide whether or not it means net or that you can just write it as Pnet=Twarm-Tcool and it magically becomes an equation of net even if you have no expression demonstrating a change of P other than the simple Twarm-Tcool?

Is that what you are saying crick? Let me guess...it is and your position is based entirely on faith rather than even basic mathematical knowledge.

Funny...on another thread Frank pointed out that if one asks you a mathermatical question all one can expect from you is an insult....I asked you a mathematical question and rather than you pointing out some error that I have made...what do you do...throw out an insult...You are no engineer....you are no educated anything....my bet is that you flip burgers or push a broom....you certainly don't do anything that would require even the most basic education in math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The net energy out from the warmer object is the net energy into the cooler surroundings.
Why do you feel I would be unaware of that?

You don't seem to understand that the term net has a meaning....it is the total of something coming in minus the amount of something going out. I can have an output of anything from gas, to liquid, to solid, to electricity and do any number of things to alter the amount going out without ever altering the amount of that same thing coming in. The changes I make to the output are just that...changes to gross flow...in order to have a net flow...I need to alter the amount of whatever I have outgoing with an incoming amount.

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

Again...net means something...it isn't just a meaningless term thrown in....net is incoming minus outgoing...the SB equation in question only shows outgoing...where is the incoming term that would alter P from a simple statement of gross flow to a more complex term of gross flow?

You don't seem to understand that the term net has a meaning....it is the total of something coming in minus the amount of something going out.

Excellent. You got one right.

The equation describes something going out...but doesn't describe anything coming in.

The equation describes the net.

Again...net means something...it isn't just a meaningless term thrown in....net is incoming minus outgoing

Exactly.

the SB equation in question only shows outgoing

The equation shows the net.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD purposely ignores that two processes are going on at the same time. Both objects are radiating, the warmer one more than the cool one. For any period of time measured there is a net excess of radiation from warm to cool. You cannot separate the outcome of the two processes but you can calculate the individual strengths.

I am not ignoring anything...I am looking at the equations for what they are.... I believe you purposely ignore the fact that net has a specific meaning....net is incoming minus outgoing...or outgoing minus incoming...a statement of change in outgoing or incoming is a gross change. It is only a net change if there is a change in the amount of whatever I have incoming or outgoing as a result of some additional incoming or outgoing that would not be shown in a simple equation showing gross movement. P(+-)P1 =Twarm=Tcool is a statement of net change while P=Twarm=Tcool is a statement of gross change. The math is what it is Ian and as I have said all along...mathematical statements have meaning. Simply saying that something means net when the equations don't support your statement doesn't make them mean net.

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool

Saying net doesn't make it so till you show where you are altering P by some incoming energy...P = Twarm - Tcool is a statement of gross change....you need an addition to or a subtraction of something from P besides Twarm and Tcool in order to have a statement of net change rather than gross change. Just saying net doesn't make it net because net means something...unless you are saying that in climate science net doesn't mean incoming minus outgoing as it does in every other branch of science.

This is now where SSDD says mathematics is wrong and the associative rule produces a tainted result.

I am not wrong and you remain unable to prove that I am wrong...you simply say you are right and think that is enough to make you right.

You simply can't argue with SSDD on this. He has a blind spot that he will protect at all costs.

I am afraid that it is you who has the blind spot ian.....you can't see that there is a difference between P+P1=Twarm - Tcool which is a statement of net change in P.... and P=Twarm-Tcool which is a statement of gross change of P.

Did you ever come up with an explanation why one of your links shows energy moving from our cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

Or why another of your links said energy goes from the cooler surface of the Sun toward its warmer core?

 

[IanC]

SSDD is not looking at the equations for what they are. Generalizations from 100 years ago to get the basic ideas described. For example, the process obviously needs a calculus term as power from both sides changes with respect to time.

The idea that a hundred year old first approximation can be used as proof that radiation from an individual particle is prohibited is obvious nonsense.

 

[rdean]

those poor dear climate Scientist needs to RETIRE and go off to the loony farm

We tried to tell people they were NUTS and so where those who belonged in their CULT

When did the Republicans suddenly start believing the earth is billions of years old?

 

[SSDD]

The equation describes the net.

So where is the expression of incoming energy altering P?


the SB equation in question only shows outgoing

The equation shows the net.

Point out the expression which alters P aside from T-Tc which is not an expression of incoming energy changing P...T-Tc is akin to reducing the size of an arpeture in which gas is escaping....it changes the gross flow of gas, but does not alter the original quantity of P which would be required in order for the equation to express a net change.

 

[SSDD]

[

Did you ever come up with an explanation why one of your links shows energy moving from our cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

They didn't "show" anything...stating that it reaches the surface is no more accurate than claiming that the SB equation expresses net...simply saying a thing doesn't make it so.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is not looking at the equations for what they are. Generalizations from 100 years ago to get the basic ideas described. For example, the process obviously needs a calculus term as power from both sides changes with respect to time.

Imagine that....looking at an equation for what it is and stating what it says....as I have pointed out repeatedly....it is you guys who are interpreting the equations to be saying something that they aren't....When net energy exchange is observed, measured and proven, I am sure that the second law of thermodynamics and all laws that derive from it will be rewritten to state that they are talking about net energy exchanges....today, however, they aren't...and aren't likely to be altered anytime in the near future.

The idea that a hundred year old first approximation can be used as proof that radiation from an individual particle is prohibited is obvious nonsense.

You are kidding...right? The whole AGW farce is based on 100 year old science...

And since there never has been any proof that energy moves from cool to warm, the laws, and accompanying equations say what they have always said....there is no back radiation and it is good to see that at last you can finally admit that the equations say as much...maybe you can explain it to toddster and crick since clearly neither of them have the slightest idea of what the equations say or don't say. Think you can bring yourself to do that?

 

[SSDD]

those poor dear climate Scientist needs to RETIRE and go off to the loony farm

We tried to tell people they were NUTS and so where those who belonged in their CULT

When did the Republicans suddenly start believing the earth is billions of years old?

All along....those few people who claim a young earth are mostly southern backwoods cross burning, sheet wearing democrats whose family have been democrats since slave days....the same ones who pitched over teaching evolution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The equation describes the net.

So where is the expression of incoming energy altering P?


the SB equation in question only shows outgoing

The equation shows the net.

Point out the expression which alters P aside from T-Tc which is not an expression of incoming energy changing P...T-Tc is akin to reducing the size of an arpeture in which gas is escaping....it changes the gross flow of gas, but does not alter the original quantity of P which would be required in order for the equation to express a net change.

So where is the expression of incoming energy altering P?

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

P = εAσT^4

The above equation shows the outgoing radiation of the cooler object.
It also shows the outgoing radiation of the warmer object.
Pretty weird, right?
To get the net energy lost (by the warmer object) and gained (by the cooler object) you have to add the 2 numbers.

The below formula does it in a single step.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Did you ever come up with an explanation why one of your links shows energy moving from our cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

They didn't "show" anything...stating that it reaches the surface is no more accurate than claiming that the SB equation expresses net...simply saying a thing doesn't make it so.

They didn't "show" anything...

They show that even your own sources disagree with your claim.

stating that it reaches the surface is no more accurate

They were your sources. Why don't you post a couple that actually agree with you?

...simply saying a thing doesn't make it so.

I know, and we're trying to educate you, but it's not working yet, despite the links you posted.