Skip to main content

Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Part II

In contrast to my usual practice, this time I'm putting the blog entry's image at the bottom of the page. Pretty wild and crazy of me, eh?
Resuming discussion of the same law we discussed yesterday. As a historical observation, it has its name because Jozef Stefan inferred it from experimental evidence in 1879, five years before Ludwig Boltzmann derived it in theoretical fashion.


The law is of considerable importance to certain contemporary issues, because the Earth itself, including its atmosphere, can be considered for purposes of prediction as a "gray box" of the sort I discussed in the last post. If we know how much radiation the earth is receiving from the sun, and we know how much of that energy is reflected away, vis-à-vis how much is absorbed, we should be able to say something about the heat of this box, this planetary system, as a whole.


The International Panel on Climate Change says that 30% of the sun's energy is reflected away, the remainder is absorbed. It makes intuitive sense to suppose that the content of the atmosphere changes that percentage. Given certain atmospheric changes, the earth will absorb more of the radiation and absorb it.


Until a couple of years ago this sort of thing was known as the "greenhouse effect." But people who believe that most of us are inadequately alarmed about such matters recently stopped using the term, because they figure a "greenhouse" sounds like a nice comfortable and beautiful place to live, so the term frames the discussion in a skewed way.
Don't look for some sweeping conclusion here. I've already made my views on global warning known on this blog and elsewhere. 
I simply wanted to clarify for myself what this Stefan-Boltzmann reference was all about, in case that impressive term swims within my ken again.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Calenders for 2016

I have a Dilbert day-by-day calendar again this year.

Saturday and Sunday share a single page, each day of the work week has a page, and a comic, of ots own.

I'll quote here the comic for January 9/10. Dilbert is sitting at his desk, the pointy-haired boss is standing behind him.

Boss asks, "Do we have any actionable analytics from our Big Data in the cloud?"

Dilbert, "Yes, the data shows that my productivity plunges whenever you learn new jargon."

Boss, "Maybe in-memory computing will accelerate your applications."

Dilbert, "Plunge, plunge, plunge."

I also have a month by month wall calendar, aptly titled "Puppies," in which I'll be greeted each month by another cure dog-child. January greets me with a photo of a babe beagle, running about in grass with an orange ball in his mouth.

Finally, am the proud possessor of a desk book for appointments. For the first time in several years, I'm NOT using one from American Exp…

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …