Science from the other side of Climate Change

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Ok what's the correct answeŕ?

Well since you were answering a question posed to me, you might want to check if I answered the question.... and sure enough:

The giant fusion reactor nearby, also called Sol, the sun, helios, etc...

 

[AProudLefty]

Well since you were answering a question posed to me, you might want to check if I answered the question.... and sure enough:

He said additional.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

He said additional.

Which doesn't change the answer. There is only one source of energy that has a chance of measurably increasing the temperature of a planet around here.

 

[AProudLefty]

Which doesn't change the answer. There is only one source of energy that has a chance of measurably increasing the temperature of a planet around here.

Exactly what I said.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Exactly what I said.

No, you said "nowhere"

Given the question you said "the additional energy comes from nowhere".

This is false. If you are going to have to deal with confused or autistic people you need to be very precise in your language.

 

[AProudLefty]

No, you said "nowhere"

Given the question you said "the additional energy comes from nowhere".

This is false. If you are going to have to deal with confused or autistic people you need to be very precise in your language.

Ah I forgot I was dealing with autistic person. My bad.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

So, you double down and show us you don't know what an "inversion fallacy"--I assume you either mean Denying the Antecedent, or Confusion of the inverse, likely the former--is.

I have already presented the equations to you. You simply want to ignore them.

I didn't ignore them, it's simply that you don't know how to use them.

No, it isn't.

You just described a reciprocating engine cycle dumbass.

A Carnot Heat Engine is an idealized thermal cycle used to analyze heat engines in general, whether they are reciprocating, turbine, steam, gasoline, or whatever. It is a paper exercise not an actual tangible thing.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies.

Stefan-Boltzmann is based on the use of black bodies and thermal output. Albedo defines the relative amount of absorption to reflection of a body.

Emissivity is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface. The temperature of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

This is one of the most asinine things I've read in at least a week. One can measure, accurately, the temperature of a surface by the light given off by it. Optical pyrometers, as an example, use this method to accurately measure temperatures on a surface remotely.

Unlock Precision with optris CT Series Pyrometers: Robust and accurate!

Ideal for high-temperature applications in metal, ceramics, or glass industries, the CT series offers robust design, allowing temperatures up to 250°C without extra cooling. Say goodbye to excessive mechanical installation costs.

solution.optris.com

Optical Pyrometer : Construciton, Principle, Working & Its Applications

This Article Discusses an Overview of an Optical Pyrometer, Construction, Working Principle, Advantages, Disadvantages and its Application

www.elprocus.com

What you are claiming is utterly uniformed and downright stupid.

Wien's law is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So, now you try to obfuscate the discussion by bringing in Wien's. Why not Planck too? Name dropping doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. All of this comes back to temperature can be measured at a distance accurately, like from space. The temperature of the Earth can be accurately estimated for an average overall one.

 

[IBDaMann]

It can be, but that is irrelevant to planetary climate.

There is no such thing. Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

 

[IBDaMann]

There is energy from the stars.

Correct, and that would make the earth-sun sytem an open one, if the combined energy from the other stars were not treated as zero.

Like any given closed system, you cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system.

If the other energy sources were not zero, we would have to consider them. However, they are effectively zero and thus they are not considered.

 

[AProudLefty]

So, you double down and show us you don't know what an "inversion fallacy"--I assume you either mean Denying the Antecedent, or Confusion of the inverse, likely the former--is.


I didn't ignore them, it's simply that you don't know how to use them.


A Carnot Heat Engine is an idealized thermal cycle used to analyze heat engines in general, whether they are reciprocating, turbine, steam, gasoline, or whatever. It is a paper exercise not an actual tangible thing.


Stefan-Boltzmann is based on the use of black bodies and thermal output. Albedo defines the relative amount of absorption to reflection of a body.


This is one of the most asinine things I've read in at least a week. One can measure, accurately, the temperature of a surface by the light given off by it. Optical pyrometers, as an example, use this method to accurately measure temperatures on a surface remotely.

Unlock Precision with optris CT Series Pyrometers: Robust and accurate!

Ideal for high-temperature applications in metal, ceramics, or glass industries, the CT series offers robust design, allowing temperatures up to 250°C without extra cooling. Say goodbye to excessive mechanical installation costs.

solution.optris.com

Optical Pyrometer : Construciton, Principle, Working & Its Applications

This Article Discusses an Overview of an Optical Pyrometer, Construction, Working Principle, Advantages, Disadvantages and its Application

www.elprocus.com

What you are claiming is utterly uniformed and downright stupid.

So, now you try to obfuscate the discussion by bringing in Wien's. Why not Planck too? Name dropping doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. All of this comes back to temperature can be measured at a distance accurately, like from space. The temperature of the Earth can be accurately estimated for an average overall one.

Gfm, ITN, and DAmann are autistic.

 

[AProudLefty]

Correct, and that would make the earth-sun sytem an open one, if the combined energy from the other stars were not treated as zero.


If the other energy sources were not zero, we would have to consider them. However, they are effectively zero and thus they are not considered.

Cute how you all are talking to each other.

 

[IBDaMann]

Stefan-Boltzmann is based on the use of black bodies and thermal output.

Incorrect.

Albedo defines the relative amount of absorption to reflection of a body.

There is no "albedo" in Stefan-Boltzmann.

This is one of the most asinine things I've read in at least a week. One can measure, accurately, the temperature of a surface by the light given off by it.

This is one of the most gullible things I've read amongst all that you have regurgitated. How do you presume that any sensor can discern, from the light it senses:

* what portion of that light is being emitted from the body in question
* what portion of that light is simply reflecting off the body in question, but is from some other source
* what portion of that light is actually coming directly from some other source

?

Did you say that no sensor can discern such? Great! You would be correct.

Optical pyrometers, as an example, use this method to accurately measure temperatures on a surface remotely.

Except that they become very inaccurate as the disctance starts to be measured in tens of meters. When the distance is kilometers, any remaining accuracy tanks. At a satellite's distance in orbit, accuracy is almost nonexistent.

 

[Into the Night]

So, you double down and show us you don't know what an "inversion fallacy"--I assume you either mean Denying the Antecedent, or Confusion of the inverse, likely the former--is.

Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy.

I didn't ignore them, it's simply that you don't know how to use them.

You ignore them. You can't just set aside any theory of science.

A Carnot Heat Engine is an idealized thermal cycle used to analyze heat engines in general, whether they are reciprocating, turbine, steam, gasoline, or whatever. It is a paper exercise not an actual tangible thing.

It is an ideal reciprocating engine.

Stefan-Boltzmann is based on the use of black bodies

No, it isn't.

and thermal output.

There is no such thing as "thermal output" in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Albedo defines the relative amount of absorption to reflection of a body.

Albedo is not used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

This is one of the most asinine things I've read in at least a week. One can measure, accurately, the temperature of a surface by the light given off by it.

No, you cannot. You don't know the emissivity of that surface. To measure it, you must FIRST know accurately the temperature of the surface.

Optical pyrometers, as an example, use this method to accurately measure temperatures on a surface remotely.

Not possible.

Unlock Precision with optris CT Series Pyrometers: Robust and accurate!

Ideal for high-temperature applications in metal, ceramics, or glass industries, the CT series offers robust design, allowing temperatures up to 250°C without extra cooling. Say goodbye to excessive mechanical installation costs.

solution.optris.com

Optical Pyrometer : Construciton, Principle, Working & Its Applications

This Article Discusses an Overview of an Optical Pyrometer, Construction, Working Principle, Advantages, Disadvantages and its Application

www.elprocus.com

What you are claiming is utterly uniformed and downright stupid.

Inversion fallacy.

So, now you try to obfuscate the discussion by bringing in Wien's.

I didn't. YOU did. Inversion fallacy.

Why not Planck too?

Planck's law is not Wien's law or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Name dropping

I am not dropping any names. YOU ARE. Inversion fallacy.

doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. All of this comes back to temperature can be measured at a distance accurately, like from space.

Not possible. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and can't be measured.

The temperature of the Earth can be accurately estimated for an average overall one.

Not possible. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. You are denying statistical mathematics now.

 

[IBDaMann]

Actually he said that MIT scientists said they have trapped light.

Think back to your deaf-studies. Once he adopted their baseless assertions as his own, they became his baseless assertions as well.

 

[AProudLefty]

Think back to your deaf-studies. Once he adopted their baseless assertions as his own, they became his baseless assertions as well.

ITN claimed that one cannot trap light (and heat). What does that mean?

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you not believe that the equilibrium temperature can change?

Don't you accept black body science? Don't you accept thermodynamics?

 

[IBDaMann]

ITN claimed that one cannot trap light (and heat). What does that mean?

What is your definition of "trapped"? If a fox is "trapped in a cage," what does that mean to you?

 

[AProudLefty]

What is your definition of "trapped"? If a fox is "trapped in a cage," what does that mean to you?

ITN said it, not me. He keep repeating it. Also he repeat that one cannot trap heat.

Wearing a blanket can trap heat.

 

[IBDaMann]

ITN said it, not me. He keep repeating it. Also he repeat that one cannot trap heat.

I'm trying to best answer your question. What is your definition of "trapped"? If a fox is "trapped in a cage," what does that mean to you?

Wearing a blanket can trap heat.

Nope. Heat is not something that can be trapped, but then again, your deaf studies never taught you what heat is.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Incorrect.

Yes, you are.

There is no "albedo" in Stefan-Boltzmann.

scroll down to 3.1.2

Surface Temperature of the Earth | Physics in a Nutshell

www.physics-in-a-nutshell.com

This is one of the most gullible things I've read amongst all that you have regurgitated. How do you presume that any sensor can discern, from the light it senses:

* what portion of that light is being emitted from the body in question
* what portion of that light is simply reflecting off the body in question, but is from some other source
* what portion of that light is actually coming directly from some other source

Are you really trying to say that optical pyrometers don't work and that the whole field of spectroscopy is wrong? Are you really trying to tell us that?

Ask Astro: How do scientists determine the chemical compositions of the planets and stars? | Astronomy.com

categories:Exoplanets, Planets | tags:Ask Astro, Magazine, Planetary Science

www.astronomy.com

Did you say that no sensor can discern such? Great! You would be correct.

You really are delusionally insane here. If that were true, nobody would bother using satellites. Thankfully, you are full of shit and smarter people than you--by far--do use them to get accurate measurements.
No, you would be wrong. Dead flat wrong. The science of spectroscopy proves it and has for over 100 years now.

Except that they become very inaccurate as the disctance starts to be measured in tens of meters. When the distance is kilometers, any remaining accuracy tanks. At a satellite's distance in orbit, accuracy is almost nonexistent.