Most of the past ten thousand years hotter than today.

Bigdog said:
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nucle...transfer/kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation/
Click to expand...

No such law as thermal radiation. Light is not thermal energy. False authority fallacy. Heat only flows in one direction. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you are misquoting Kirchoff. His law of emission that you DID quote does also shoots down any argument for global warming. You are now also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as Kirchoff's emissivity law. No, you cannot use Kirchoff to trap light or thermal energy.
 
Into the Night said:
No such law as thermal radiation. Light is not thermal energy. False authority fallacy. Heat only flows in one direction. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you are misquoting Kirchoff. His law of emission that you DID quote does also shoots down any argument for global warming. You are now also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as Kirchoff's emissivity law. No, you cannot use Kirchoff to trap light or thermal energy.
Click to expand...

Ok, so where is the specific flaw(s) in this ...

"Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

emissivity ε = absorptivity α

emissivity of various materialThis law must also be valid to satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As was written, all bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat. Two objects radiate heat toward each other. But what if a colder object with high emissivity radiates toward a hotter object with very low emissivity? This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct sight of the other to receive radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must also be radiating heat to the cool body. Moreover, a hot body will radiate more energy than a cold body. The case of different emissivities is solved by Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation, which states that objects with low emissivity also have low absorptivity. As a result, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system, and the second law is still satisfied."

I'll address Stefan B, later.
 
Bigdog said:
Ok, so where is the specific flaw(s) in this ...

"Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

emissivity ε = absorptivity α
Click to expand...
RQAA. I have have already answered this question. Do not ask it again.
Bigdog said:
emissivity of various materialThis law must also be valid to satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Kirchoff's law of emissivity does not have anything to do with any law of thermodynamics.
Bigdog said:
As was written, all bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat.
Click to expand...
Heat is not radiated.
Bigdog said:
Two objects radiate heat toward each other.
Click to expand...
Heat is not radiated.
Bigdog said:
But what if a colder object with high emissivity radiates toward a hotter object with very low emissivity?
Click to expand...
Nothing.
Bigdog said:
This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct sight of the other to receive radiation from it.
Click to expand...
No. You cannot heat a warmer object by using a colder object. You cannot just discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Bigdog said:
Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must also be radiating heat to the cool body.
Click to expand...
Heat does not radiate. Heat is not contained in anything.
Bigdog said:
Moreover, a hot body will radiate more energy than a cold body. The case of different emissivities is solved by Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation, which states that objects with low emissivity also have low absorptivity. As a result, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system, and the second law is still satisfied."
Click to expand...
No. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder object. You cannot reduce entropy...ever.
Bigdog said:
I'll address Stefan B, later.
Click to expand...
By discarding it??
 
McRocket said:
Both sides have gotten goofy.

Global warming is CLEARLY a thing.
It just does not seem to be remotely as bad as the doom-and-gloomers make it out to be.

And save your replies.

I couldn't give a shit what the weirdos on the extremes of either side have to say on this.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it's as bad as it's going to get?
 
Into the Night said:
RQAA. I have have already answered this question. Do not ask it again.

Kirchoff's law of emissivity does not have anything to do with any law of thermodynamics.

Heat is not radiated.

Heat is not radiated.

Nothing.

No. You cannot heat a warmer object by using a colder object. You cannot just discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Heat does not radiate. Heat is not contained in anything.

No. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder object. You cannot reduce entropy...ever.

By discarding it??
Click to expand...

Heat can be transmitted by radiation, thus it can be radiated.
 
Into the Night said:
It is quite sustainable.

Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Nuclear fuel produces more energy, pound for pound, than any other form of electricity generation, and coal is plentiful and cheap.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere, absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Click to expand...

Oil and natural gas are not renewable, at least not in terms of human timescales at least. You state this bullshit over and over yet never produce any evidence.
 
Bigdog said:
Heat can be transmitted by radiation, thus it can be radiated.
Click to expand...

Of course heat can be transmitted by radiation, only fools think otherwise.

Heat transfer through radiation takes place in form of electromagnetic waves mainly in the infrared region. Radiation emitted by a body is a consequence of thermal agitation of its composing molecules. Radiation heat transfer can be described by reference to the 'black body'.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Do you really think it's as bad as it's going to get?
Click to expand...

No.
I assume it will get worse - if everything stays as is.
But I do not believe it is as remotely as bad as the gloom and doomers say.

1) like Bernie Sanders:

'Sanders said, “We don’t have decades. What the scientists are telling us, if we don’t get our act together within the next eight or nine years, we’re talking about cities all over the world, major cities going underwater. We’re talking about increased drought. We’re talking about increased extreme weather disturbances. The United Nations is telling us that in the years to come, there are going to be hundreds of millions of climate refugees causing national security issues all over the world.”'

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/1...-cities-are-underwater-due-to-climate-change/


2) I remember in the 1990's?
French scientists were saying that the Maldives WILL be underwater in 20-30 years.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/21/maldives-global-warming-sea-level/
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798

Well...they aren't.
At all!!!
https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...8ad8e99b5a051299!8m2!3d4.1754959!4d73.5093474



3) saying it is an 'emergency' and other blather like that.
Without offering HARD EVIDENCE that what they are saying WILL - for certain - come to pass.
Is ridiculous.


Besides.
You don't 'fight' climate change with more tax dollars or more laws.

You inform the masses of THE FACTS.
And let the people take personal steps to pollute less (if they wish).
Or to not support corporations who pollute unnecessarily.

But trying to force people to do 'this' and 'that'.
Whilst threatening to take trillions of their tax dollars (around the world) to 'fight', climate change is WRONG and silly.
It has not worked and it will NOT work.
 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
At this point it couldn't possibly be more obvious that the way we produce and consume energy is not sustainable. The planet has given us dozens of warning signs over the past 2-3 decades.

The situation we are in - in terms of preserving our environment - is dire.
Click to expand...

No, it has not. We are not rapidly warming, (nowhere near as quickly as 15,000=25,000 years ago) nor are the seas rapidly rising.


What are these mysterious signs The Gaia has sent you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top