Reply With Quote
Then ask someone who is applying it to my assessments of the radiative changes. I most certainly am not.
You afraid people cannnot decide for themselves, so you have to tell them what to think?
The only calculations I made was extension of percentage changes. I was not doing anything with thermodynamics, but with watts.
You inability to understand is not my failure.
You still don't understand.
I said as an assumption, before doing any math:
This is clearly thinking out load of what they possibly did. I never stated any such thing as thinking it was factual.I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead.
If you mean the fourth power math, I was only explaining how the changes work. I was not stating any specific values except that -IF- they were using blackbody math, that 1.7% would make about a 1 degree change. Go to any online black body calculator. Set the emissivity and other factors where ever you like and compare 254 K and 255 K. You will see a 1.56% difference in emitted radiance. When I did that calculation, I calculated for from 100% to 98.3%, and got just over a 1.09 degree change. I didn't have to use the whole formulation to do so.
Yes, magnitude absolutely matters. Again, my thinking out loud was that they possibly misplaced a decimal point, and again... idiot... I said that before I did any calculations. I did not say they did. I even stated before this was an assumption I made before doing any calculation, but your simple mind apparently cannot comprehend that.magnitudes don't matter.
Did you ever ask if I believe that? No. And FYI... I don't, and never did. I only had an open mind to the possibility.
Do you understand what parts are linear and what parts are not? I was applying the 1.7% to the nearly linear parts. The nonlinear parts do not matter because they are either really small, or because we are not changing the variables that affect the larger ones. We are not change CO2 levels for example, which would require a complex and primarily logarithmic function.
Reduce the incoming solar energy by 1.7%... of the same spectra... This reduces almost all radiative numbers by very close to 1.7% as well. It is just that simple. If you disagree, show me where I am wrong.
Then ask someone who is applying it to my assessments of the radiative changes. I most certainly am not.
Like you?
That's not what I am saying. Are you really that dumb to think so?Its just stupid that he's saying they ed up and he has no idea how to do the calculations himself to figure out the Earth's temp.
It's obvious you three stooges don't want a serious discussion. No matter what I say, you respond to something else.
smh
How about you graph a 4th order polynomial with an coefficient you want and tell me if it looks like a line to you. it. I'll do it.
Now which one do you think is fourth order and which one do you think is linear?
You really have no idea what you are talking about. I slammed you about not knowing about linearity a few months back and ever since you have been trying to apply it and demonstrating very clearly that it is beyond your scope.
Why do you think it applies to this discussion?
Stop wasting my time troll.
Because you keep acting like the phenomenon is linear when it's not.
You don't use the dumbed down version nor the linear version that you assert because you suck at thermodynamics.
(4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 - a) πR2So
That is a simplified version. At least it tries to consider amongst other things, emissivity and boltzman's constant even if it simplifies the steady state using a disk.
Now where do you think you went wrong?
I didn't go wrong because I an not converting watts to degrees.
You simply do not understand thermodynamics. At all. As Agloco stated, you cannot just throw out plank's constant or the boltzman's constant because youre too stupid to understand it.
I'm not throwing them out. I am pointing out the radiative value changes only. Thermodynamics doesn't need to be calculated.
If I have a material that reflects 35% of a given set of radiative spectra, and I reduce the spectra by 1.7%, my material still reflects 35% of it.
If I have a material that absorbs 70% of of the spectra that goes through it, and I reduce the power of this spectra by 1.7%, 70% of what I throw at is still absorbed.
Do you dispute this?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-09-2012 at 06:03 AM.
I will ask you three stooges once again.
Does this make any sense to you?
All these values change with incoming solar energy. As you change the incoming solar energy, most the percentages of each path remain the same, as long as the other variables don't change.
I dispute your ability to do math. Dr. Decimal Point.
smhI will ask you three stooges once again.
Does this make any sense to you?
All these values change with incoming solar energy. As you change the incoming solar energy, most the percentages of each path remain the same, as long as the other variables don't change.
Did your total failure hit you like a ton of bricks?
LOL WHY must they remain the same????I will ask you three stooges once again.
Does this make any sense to you?
All these values change with incoming solar energy. As you change the incoming solar energy, most the percentages of each path remain the same, as long as the other variables don't change.
I can't wait to hear this argument.
Uh, YES, I dispute this. This is exactly what Fuzzy is talking about. It is NOT linear. You are once again dumbing down to fit your simple understanding and its blatantly wrong. If this were the case we would not have ice ages on Earth from the mechanisms we do now.
You have no idea if asteroid dust would uniformly absorb photons across that same spectrum.
And
We know that the conts uent materials of asteriods do not absorb uniformly across the solar spectrum.
A reasonable supposition, then, is that asteroid dust will likely not attenuate uniformly across the solar spectrum.
Now answer my question about the Stefan-Boltzmann formulation please. What is implicit in using the integrated form of Plancks Law, and why would it matter in the scenario I outlined.
I've basically walked you over to the dance floor, now it's time to see if you can waltz. The answer should be easy for you, seeing as it doesn't involve any decimals and such.
btw...Ag. What the is that in your sig pic?
It's a warp core of course.......
Full of tropical fish. You can find it at the Radisson Blu in Berlin.
I see. So the fish mediate the matter/anti-matter annihilation event. Very clever those Berliners!
That hotel should haul ass!
Spot on!!
It's positively hypnotic, especially at night with the ambient lighting they use. There's also an elevator that goes into the middle of it for an immersing experience. I didn;t think to ask if you could dive around in it though. Doubtful, but that would be over the top imo.
A scuba experience 1 mile from the Brandenburg Gate? Who would've thunk it?
I'm working on a couple of projects with a jazz guitarist from Berlin. I'm due a trip over there. That's definitely on my must see list if I get over there!
Where's PoopDeck when you need him?
Quick someone start mentioning his list. I hear if you say it three times in front of a mirror by candle light, he appears and calls you out on logical fallacies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
