Investigating Iceskaters nutty claims

[magellan]

Feb 16, 2012 11:05:45 GMT Andrew said:

Magellan has made the astounding discovery that ideas on radiation at least 150 years old and only partially modified and actually majorly enhanced by the discovery of the quantum nature of the Universe need a major modification

Magellan and others have observed that molecules that are hundreds of millions of light years apart, have some ability to be aware of the total energy level of the mass of material they were part of when emission occured, or even more astoundingly that molecules have foreknowledge of the temperature of masses that their radiation will encounter in the future.

Dispite all previous beliefs to the contrary, Magellan is going to demonstrate that cold masses have an ability to suck heat out of hot masses at distances we cannot even imagine

So far we only have sketchy details but the discovery is going to totally turn our ideas of radiation and matter absolutely upside down. Everything we knew and thought true about radiation is entirely wrong.

Magellan is now going to explain what he has discovered in his own words. This will be a monumentally epic moment in science. Indeed it will be epic beyond words, because so far no person on Earth has been able to explain the discovery, so that any human being is capable of conceiving the truelly mindboggling nature of the theoretical implications the discovery is revealing.

Edited to remove poor etiquette and inflammatory rhetoric.

All you need to do is provide experimental proof of what you claim. Instead you resort to yelling, excessive use of the full spectrum of the rainbow in your posts and calling others stupid.

Nowhere have I stated the "greenhouse effect" does not exist. I have not stated there is no such thing as "back radiation". I have not stated the atmosphere does not warm the surface of the planet. What I am stating is if you place a hot object next to a cold object, both surfaces do not warm.

Tell me what observations in my real world example are incorrect instead of lecturing about the last 150 years of theory which you have yet to quote specifics of. Show me in a physics textbook that states both surfaces will get warmer when a hot object is placed next to a cold object.

Compare your heat diagram with the one I posted and tell me how my explanation is wrong. Show me a radiative heat transfer model whereby a heat source can further warm itself by exposing it to a colder object.

I have in inductive heater. Tell me what experiment to perform and I'll do it, assuming it isn't ridiculously complicated. It shouldn't be that complicated. Your claim is simple; place a cold object next to a hotter object and both surfaces will get warmer. Right?

Show me the math Iceskater. I'm not a physicist, but it appears there are a number of physicists and chemists that don't think a cold object can further warm a hotter object via radiation or conduction.

Show us by empirical evidence why Nasif S. Nahle's experiments are wrong. Those are the issues you have not addressed.

[icefisher]

Magellan and others have observed that molecules that are hundreds of millions of light years apart, have some ability to be aware of the total energy level of the mass of material they were part of when emission occured, or even more astoundingly that molecules have foreknowledge of the temperature of masses that their radiation will encounter in the future.


I'm going to stop right there!

Sounds like Iceskater is somewhere far beyond Jupiter in defending back radiation. I think I will wait until he decides to fly back and land on the surface and produce a visual blueprint for a radiation theory before I comment much further.

EARTH TO MARS! EARTH TO MARS! Mars could you relay that message to Iceskater as I am not sure my transmitter is powerful enough to reach him!

[icefisher]

Why stop there Icefisher? Next thing you will be asking God to help you.

I am not the one on route to the holy trinity looking for a shred of evidence to support my theory Iceskater. I have a simple heat pump system with gravity and convection that explains everything and is demonstrated everyday. For variability

I am going with the lab reproduced GCRs for now as being the most advanced lab science on the matter of climate change.

Observations are supporting a climate change mechanism over a single molecule that has been linearly increasing for decades.

Dr. Lonnie Thompson's Qori Kalis glacier is still there bigger than it was in February 2007 when he predicted it would be gone in 5 years. And its his icecore work that provides the most basic foundation for CAGW.

Dr. James Hansen's East River is not rising though we are at least half way to when its supposed to be submerged.

I could go on but the fact is life is suggesting the climate variable is one that goes up and down and doesn't keep accelerating in one direction.

Your variable, back radiation by the weaker of two major molecules in the atmopshere has not even been reconciled in a logical manner with its big brother. If you play around with Modtran you find the assumption for water vapor today is exactly a net zero when combined with the shading effects of clouds.

Thats pure speculation! Modtran calculates the same greenhouse effect I calculate namely about 8.3 degrees C. Modtran with CO2 returns a big fat zero for the combined effect of clouds and water vapor.

So climate science took the reflection of clouds and computed a greenhouse effect of about 33 degrees, 4 times the effect of CO2 as it turns out and put it in the feedback bin without any radiative analysis whatsoever of the relative effect of water to CO2.

My theory is much simpler and the unknowns much smaller. I compute a greenhouse effect of at most the 8.3 degrees. Suggesting the atmosphere would be 25 degrees cooler without a properly computed water cycle is a huge blackhole for climate science.

No such hole exists in my theory. Read all the discussion on the Jelbring gravity theory. Jelbring has the end state of his atmosphere wrong but he does have one of the factors well identified, namely the force of gravity. The force of gravity cannot warm anything by itself so you need other parts. But the sum of the other parts can be identified by the passive solar water heating analogy, convection, a heat trap (atmosphere), collectors (surface) and a medium with the ability to store a lot of heat and hold it at higher temperatures with less radiation emitted (gases of the atmosphere). A completely practical and functional machine that can explain the lapse rate and why the surface is warmer than the TOA.

In case you don't know Jelbring's theory is shot down by the atmosphere going isothermic (supported by Spencer among others) once it is separated from the variable solar input. All the physicists agreed that if you keep the atmospheric heat trap with no leaks (in or out) then the entire atmosphere would go isothermic and the bottom of the atmosphere would warm the top. The hinge point would be TOA in our case because it will go to thermal equilibrium at 278.5K which is the average temperature of TOA.

I don't need to go to the nearest star and beyond to find a star that can't see another star to bolster the theory of back radiation.

I don't need corollaries to the big bang theory as suggested by Steve and his referral to Olber's paradox. . . .everything necessary can be found and demonstrated here at the heart of our solar system.

Its not burdened by cumbersome confusions with reflections which is a true form of back radiation but far smaller than what is needed for imbuing CO2 with super insulation properties but overall is an important player in temporary climate variability.

I do not need to fear this as a minus .5 degC per century is probably slow enough for adaptation.

It is probably not as beneficial as the plus .5 degrees were over the last 300 years or so its apt to be more challenging. But of course I have no idea what the sun is going to do.

Reforming one mind at a time.

[magellan]

Feb 18, 2012 22:05:02 GMT Andrew said:

Feb 18, 2012 19:14:05 GMT magellan said:

You said I was a nutjob with my real world examples which are easily falsifiable, but I know you won't falsify them ;D In fact, I tried it for fun at work yesterday. As predicted, a metal ring heated to 150F was placed on the colder granite plate and the end touching the plate rapidly cooled while the side facing up did not. Neither did the outer edges of the part near the granite plate get warmer.

I then repeated the process by suspending the part ~1mm above the plate. Gee Iceskater, for some odd reason the face of the hotter object toward the surface plate still cooled while the side facing up remained warmer.

And no Iceskater, granite has no special magnetic properties. I can use a steel surface plate, aluminum or whatever you wish, the results won't change much. Now you post this again as if it is meaningful.

You actually expect anyone with measurement experience not to question your process attempting to discriminate 1.2c ? Your hand is a heat generator; you are burning calories to create the heat which introduces more heat into the system. Instead, use a plate with sufficient mass warmed to your body temperature, then place it between the two surfaces and report the results, but use a higher temperature differential.

I suspect we'll get treated to another long diatribe saying how smart you are and how stupid I am. I now owe Numerouno an apology. At least he did not patronize others by trying to humiliate them with a strawman post.

Fear not Iceskater, I talked to our CAD guys at work to see if Solid Works has the thermo module to simulate my scenario. Will you then create a post explaining Solid Works new theory of radiation?

My example was not intended to disprove the "greenhouse effect" and yours definitely does not validate it. I'm not even saying I agree with Icefisher. All I did was report 30 years of observation, which you ridiculed.

Finally Iceskater, let's dispense with the semantics game. My saying the plate "sucking" the heat from the part is common jargon in these circles.

Magellan

I am glad you tried the experiment. This is science in action and the results will speak for themselves.

1. I did my experiment with a freezer and because Iceskater objected to me using artificial cooling i used the same kind of set up using the cold wall.

I have tried also using an electric kitchen hot plate and an oven tray with cooling to a coldish room and that worked well. I wanted however to get closer temperatures to earth and the atmosphere. I also tried a room temperature plate but i thought the hand was rather elegant.

2. I can produce another video using a plate as you suggest.

3. I am not happy with your heated plate being so close to the granite. The possibility it can alter the results is definately there. You dont need to have the plate so close to the granite. As long as the granite can shield the cold of the furnace wall it will be ok

4. You supplied no temperature information about the furnace walls. Ultimately they have to be sufficiently colder than the granite for this to work. The idea is hot warm cold. So three surfaces and then swap the warm plate in and out to see the difference.

5. As i said last post i am not sure you understand the nature of the experiment. You need those three different temperatures of hot warm cold

6. If your granite is as cold as the furnace walls then it should still work to raise the temperature of the metal plate, as your heated plate must cool via its surroundings.

7. There is no way that a cold mass can radiatively suck the heat out of a hot mass unless the granite is colder than the furnace walls. Again furnace wall temperature information is needed to clarify what is going on.

8. Is the furnace wall totally clean of metal and dust? Either way you need to test the furnace wall temperature when you turn the furnace on to see if it is self heating. the whole point of this experiment is that the metal cools to a very cold surface.

9. How big is the furnace?

10. As i mentioned in the other post to get rid of all experimental uncertainities it would be better to use electrical heating inside the vacuum furnace. A light bulb painted Black should do it for the heater and provide just sufficient to warm it. All you need is reproducibility for middle plate added and without it so you can demonstrate you can get the same temperature for plate only scenario before and after you have tried the second plate.

11. But again i want to emphasise the idea of this experiment is that the light bulb cools to a cold surface and you add a middle temperature surface that then is heated by the lightbulb

12 as for me ridiculing you, you made some observations about apparantly putting cold metal into a hot furnace, apparantly between a hot furnace wall and the hot piece you were annealing that to me seemed very naive. Radiative heating would be very significant in an ordinary furnace and you would have blocked that with the cold metal.

My comment was what do you expect?

Yes i thought the idea that a cold object sucks heat out of a hot object to be a silly one. I cannot see that has any basis in science and you dont seem to have used it only as a figure of speech at the time.

a cold object in space with a warm object heats the warm object at all times unless the cold object is at absolute zero. The hot objects heats the cold object more however for a net heating by the hot object.

That is just basic heat science as put forth for a very long time.

And now you just said

As predicted, a metal ring heated to 150F was placed on the colder granite plate and the end touching the plate rapidly cooled while the side facing up did not. Neither did the outer edges of the part near the granite plate get warmer.

Magellan this is a radiation experiment. If you place a hot metal ring on a cold piece of granite the heat from the metal will conduct into the granite and rapidly cool the metal.

The metal plate cannot get warm until the granite is warmer than the furnace walls. So i have no idea what you actually did as you have not given temperature information about the granite or furnace walls.

Air conducts when there are very thin amounts of air.

I asked you if this was a vacuum induction furnace

Did you read the last post i made here??

So the saga continues for a while yet

You obviously think i am a fool and you are obviously a bit upset with me. I would not say you are a fool - i just dont think you are thinking about this so clearly.

And you have made claims about my process that are unsupported by the facts.

Twice you said i had not answered you about the greenhouse effect

And you said i was just abusive and had not provided experimental evidence, when i had.

I was also dealing with icefisher for almost two weeks who was persistantly rude with me and Steve.

Then you arrived to support Icefisher.

The idea is not to upset you. Science is what matters here.

The new video will be ready in about 12 hours.

I hope you realize your long rants aren't read, no offense, but I find very long posts like this are largely BS over substance. I never attended Evelyn Wood speed reading courses so they get largely ignored.

BTW, does the atmosphere trap heat that gets re-radiated back to the surface? Wouldn't that mean the key portion of the atmosphere doing all this back radiation should be warming faster than the surface? That's my understanding of the theory.

I've seen most of the parlor trick experiments used to "prove" greenhouse theory. Below has been the most popular used by AGW enthusiasts worldwide.

[magellan]

Feb 18, 2012 22:20:46 GMT Andrew said:

Feb 18, 2012 22:15:03 GMT magellan said:

I hope you realize your long rants aren't read, no offense, but I find very long posts like this are largely BS over substance. I never attended Evelyn Wood speed reading courses so they get largely ignored.

BTW, does the atmosphere trap heat that gets re-radiated back to the surface? Wouldn't that mean the key portion of the atmosphere doing all this back radiation should be warming faster than the surface? That's my understanding of the theory.

I've seen most of the parlor trick experiments used to "prove" greenhouse theory. Below has been the most popular used by AGW enthusiasts worldwide.

You are beginning to sound very much like Icefisher

If you think science is all soundbites and sloppy procedures then good luck with that way of working.

If you think science is all soundbites and sloppy procedures then good luck with that way of working.

If you call your refrigerator not sloppy, I can't wait to see how good it can get.

Are you capable of answering simple straight forward questions?

Does a rain drop freeze from the inside out or the outside in? That was the question I asked, not how it cooled. My mistake. The concept is the same as Icefisher's example. Apparently you don't know the answer to either example so resort to myriads of psychobabble [again] and avoid the questions.

Now, can you answer my simple questions concerning these apparent missing components in the lower troposphere that was supposed to verify the greenhouse effect? The theory is simple; the rate of warming increases with height with the greatest warming being the tropical troposphere. I have the data, would you like to see it? I doubt it.

I redacted inflammatory replies in an earlier post. I now redact that redaction. You really are a patronizing SOB.

[magellan]

Feb 16, 2012 11:05:45 GMT Andrew said:

Magellan has offered to reproduce something like Spencers backradiation warming set up in his work environment.

Watch this thread for unfolding details

No I didn't.

My measurements were simple, to the point, and had nothing to do with Spencer's set up. Good luck trying to show that a cold object can warm a hotter object as I have stated would not happen under the conditions I described. Do you expect to get different results

You have turned this into a personal vendetta by using me in the OP title. It has reached the point of reporting your antics to the admin.

[sigurdur]

iceskater:
You are missing a very important element in the above post.

1. Yes, cold objects heat warm objects, but remember, the warm object may be loosing heat FASTER than the cold object can warm it. That is a part of the radiation themo law..........

2. You have to have a COMPLETE equation, as the photons both are emitted and absorbed.

3. The only time this will NOT be true is if both objects are at ABSOLUTE ZERO. When at absolute zero, all emissions cease.

[magellan]

Feb 18, 2012 22:40:20 GMT Andrew said:

Feb 18, 2012 22:35:25 GMT magellan said:

If you think science is all soundbites and sloppy procedures then good luck with that way of working.

If you call your refrigerator not sloppy, I can't wait to see how good it can get.

Are you capable of answering simple straight forward questions?

Does a rain drop freeze from the inside out or the outside in? That was the question I asked, not how it cooled. My mistake. The concept is the same as Icefisher's example. Apparently you don't know the answer to either example so resort to myriads of psychobabble [again] and avoid the questions.

Now, can you answer my simple questions concerning these apparent missing components in the lower troposphere that was supposed to verify the greenhouse effect? The theory is simple; the rate of warming increases with height with the greatest warming being the tropical troposphere. I have the data, would you like to see it? I doubt it.

I redacted inflammatory replies in an earlier post. I now redact that redaction. You really are a patronizing SOB.

Magellan

This is not 20 questions where you get to ask me a whole lot of questions, when we already have a question that is worth pursuing that can be settled i think.

I said the rain might freeze without direction as it was supercooled before freezing. If you dont like my answer or cannot understand it who cares?

the issue here is the observations you have made about heat science and radiation that are not supported by any science i know of.

Heat can travel from a cold object to a warm object

That is the issue at hand. It has next to nothing to do with the so called green house effect. Why do i have to answer all of these other (for me) irrelevant questions to avoid upsetting you?

Abuse is not going to satisfy the issue that divides us mainly

Why am i obliged to keep answering your questions that have nothing to do with your beliefs about heat science and radation??

Heat can travel from a cold object to a warm object

You continue using this red herring. You also said radiation is chaotic. It is only chaotic once the temperatures are equalized. Until then, the heat flow is predictable and spontaneous from hot to cold. Period. In your cartoon, you must increase the power source (meaning WORK) to maintain the same temperature as the heat is transferred to the cold plate until the temperatures equalize. Where does this extra work come from?

Haven't you ever seen the characteristics with a CPU and heat sink? Assuming the heat sink is not malfunctioning and the surrounding environment remains constant, the CPU doesn't get warmer unless it is a) stressed b) overclocked. In both cases it requires more wattage to raise the temperature.

My questions have everything to do with the subject matters you are arguing with Icefisher about. I'm beginning to think you aren't as well versed in "basic physics" [in the real world] as your long rants portend.

the issue here is the observations you have made about heat science and radiation that are not supported by any science i know of.

[sigurdur]

Ok...............

Think of thermodynamics this way.

1. All objects with mass are emitting with the goal of reaching equilibrium.
2. The ONLY place there is equalibrium is at absolute zero.
3. You may "think" that you have two objects in equilibrium at a higher temperature, but that is a physical impossible task as at ANY temperture higher than absolue zero there is radiation.
There will always be imbalance.

4. What in the world does all of this have to do with climate?

[magellan]

Feb 18, 2012 23:22:17 GMT Andrew said:

Feb 18, 2012 23:17:59 GMT magellan said:

Heat can travel from a cold object to a warm object

You continue using this red herring. You also said radiation is chaotic. It is only chaotic once the temperatures are equalized. Until then, the heat flow is predictable and spontaneous from hot to cold. Period. In your cartoon, you must increase the power source (meaning WORK) to maintain the same temperature as the heat is transferred to the cold plate until the temperatures equalize. Where does this extra work come from?

Haven't you ever seen the characteristics with a CPU and heat sink? Assuming the heat sink is not malfunctioning and the surrounding environment remains constant, the CPU doesn't get warmer unless it is a) stressed b) overclocked. In both cases it requires more wattage to raise the temperature.

My questions have everything to do with the subject matters you are arguing with Icefisher about. I'm beginning to think you aren't as well versed in "basic physics" [in the real world] as your long rants portend.

the issue here is the observations you have made about heat science and radiation that are not supported by any science i know of.

When two objects of different temperatures are side by side radiation flows randomly from one to the other regardless of temperature difference. They each cool and each warm the other.

But more radiation is emitted by the hotter body to be absorbed by the colder body

The flow you are talking about is a net flow

The flow is actually two way.

Then the warmer object gets warmer still and the colder object gets warmer still without any additional work performed, got it. Heat pumps are unnecessary. I got ripped off.

[icefisher]

When two objects of different temperatures are side by side radiation flows randomly from one to the other regardless of temperature difference. They each cool and each warm the other.

But more radiation is emitted by the hotter body to be absorbed by the colder body

The flow you are talking about is a net flow

The flow is actually two way.

Net flow is all you need to know Iceskater.

You are just confusing and complicating the issue. What you describe might be relevant to a light source behind the warmer object and when you add a cooler object in the cooling path cooling slows down. I have that in my list of possibilities.

But in this instance the light is behind the alleged cooler object not the warmer object. It gets to the cooler object first and warms it then it warms the the alleged warmer object that starts out really as the cooler object.

I showed you the emissivity model that shows the atmosphere is absorbing sufficient heat to warm it towards equilibrium with the sun. And I showed you that absorption was shading the surface and denying it heat to warm towards equilibrium.

The actual watts shining on the surface are greater than the atmosphere so you might believe the surface warms faster on a global average than the atmosphere. But even that is probably false because it is said some 80 to 90% of the solar rays that fall on the surface are absorbed into the ocean at depth.

So in fact the atmosphere is absorbing 65 watts and the surface has only 20 to 40 watts at its immediate disposal.

Since these are global averages the effect is greater on the water and you intuitively think differently being a land animal, because on land the surface has access to more watts after the angle of incidence increases sufficiently to let it collect heat faster than the air is collecting it at the crack of dawn. This difference is what creates the typical onshore flow you find near coastlines. Land convection rising and going to sea, with the sea air at the surface being pulled into to fill the void of land convection, and downwelling out to sea is the name of the game.

If you are a mariner you often find calmer water further offshore than near the shore.

So you need to account for this effect in both directions and get a net effect and determine if it is positive or negative in total. I think its negative and helps cool. The easy figures suggest that. But I am all ears.

[icefisher]

You are not using the term equilibrium correctly

It makes no sense to say you are adding sufficient heat to the approximately 30 degree Earth atmosphere to warm it towards equilibrium with the 5000 degree temperature of the Sun.



That is incorrect Iceskater. I guess English is not your first language so let me explain.

e·qui·lib·ri·um/ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm/
Noun: A state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.
A state of physical balance.



There are many kinds of equilibriums. One such equilibrium in the sense of temperature is warming to a point where outgoing radiation equals incoming radiation. However, this equilibrium only applies for objects not in contact.

For items in contact it is a error to assume that radiative interactions between two items need to be balanced. There are more than one mode of heat transfer for objects in contact with each other. Thus equilibrium for surfaces in contact is via warming to the same temperature.

With such limited notion of the meaning of the word equilibrium it is no wonder at all that you are confused about climate science.

Hope this helps.

[icefisher]

An equilibrium implies that at the equilibrium point an infintessimal change would cause a reverse of the processes being studied

The surface and the atmosphere are like an electrically heated kitchen hot plate in the air of the kitchen.

They are enormously far from being in equilibrium

Sorry but you don't get to define equilibrium. The hot plate will soon be in equilibrium with the various sources acting upon it.

end of story. This is only not the case when the opposing force changes.

Beyond that its all about distribution of heat within the system by all three means of heat exchange and heat flow. Technically you are supposed to add a core energy source also which does create a gradient inside the earth. But surface gradients come and reverse on a daily and seasonal basis due entirely to differences in rate of energy transfer.

What I want to see is an entire treatise on atmosphere reflection, particulary cloud reflection.

If the cloud bottoms are 273K (0C) (right hand diagram radiating 315 in total, 1/2 down and 1/2 up) and my surface is 300K (radiating 459W/m2 up) and cloud reflectivity is 90% (reflecting 413W/m2).

My IR measuring device should measure what wattage coming from the sky?

Is that 570 watts? Or will my device measure just 413W and its really like the left hand diagram (backradiation thread master post) which you claim it is not.

Reflectivity for most solids is well understood. Its tied to emissivity with a ball and chain. In fact it is tied by definition. Only when dealing with transparent gases do the illusionists suddenly appear on the scene with smoke and mirrors.

Further, on the incoming vs outgoing conundrum the divide by 4 average radiation figure 1364w/m2/4 equals 341 w/m2. only applies to 2 dimensional surfaces.

For transparent elevated gas molecules it would be a divide by 2 number instead (682watts/m2) and since sunlight is half longwave it sounds like incoming and outgoing absorption by CO2 would be a wash. Additionally reflectivity would also be a wash in that case.

Passive solar folks learn in their first lesson how to deal with the surface orientation issue by orienting their collectors to the angle of the solar incoming.

They aren't the world is flat crew and stupidly just laying them flat on the ground a proclaiming thats all thats going on, ya can't get no mo.

[icefisher]

Theair and kitchen wall and atmosphere surrounding the building has no ability to balance the force coming from the electricity

There is no equilibrium

Pretty obviously you do not understand what equilibrium means

It involves a balance of forces.

You are now talking nonsense. You say there is no equilibrium yet you say it involves a balancing of forces which is the definition of equilibrium.

It can't be both.

[Andrew]

Feb 20, 2012 17:35:17 GMT icefisher said:

Theair and kitchen wall and atmosphere surrounding the building has no ability to balance the force coming from the electricity

There is no equilibrium

Pretty obviously you do not understand what equilibrium means

It involves a balance of forces.

You are now talking nonsense. You say there is no equilibrium yet you say it involves a balancing of forces which is the definition of equilibrium.

It can't be both.

My meaning is:

Pretty obviously you do not understand what equilibrium means

It Equilibrium involves a balance of forces.