|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 27, 2012 16:17:05 GMT
I have a proposal for an experiment to show that a colder object can cause the surface of a hotter object to become dramatically warmer at the surface when the colder object is warmed by the radiation coming from the hotter object.
This is entirely in keeping with traditional physics and the same effect as Roy Spencers thought experiment where he had internally heated metal, an unheated metal object, and a much colder surrounding environment.
I wish to use my hot concrete again with two thermocouples and then two pieces of polystyrene as the cold surface that is heated by concrete.
Obviously the temperature gradient with the polystyrene will be pretty huge compared to the concrete block i have been using as the cold surface. The heat losses from the block in that direction will be quite low compared to the rest of my cold sauna.
And with ease i can move the polystryrene from one side of the hot block to the other to show it becomes warmer at the surface when the polystyrene is there.
I want to get this over and done with.
If traditional physics is wrong then lets see it demonstrated please.
If there are any objections please let me know.
Please keep abusive comments to yourself and consider that I am 56 year old man who has given a huge amount of my own time in support of traditional physics and I do actuallly have better things to do with my time then be in support of principles established three hundred years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 27, 2012 16:32:37 GMT
Just a simple question.
Is this experiment intended to be analogous to the warm land or ocean surface with a convecting atmosphere above it with varying opacities to infra-red?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 27, 2012 16:45:50 GMT
Just a simple question. Is this experiment intended to be analogous to the warm land or ocean surface with a convecting atmosphere above it with varying opacities to infra-red? People here are saying the greenhouse effect is impossible or tiny or insignificant from an atmosphere colder than the surface . This is however contrary to traditional physics. So for example in traditional physics if you take a massive amount of heated air to high in the atmosphere and it cools somehow to -30, then in traditional physics, this cold mass is able to cause the temperature below to be warmer than it would be with no -30 mass above the surface - regardless of the earths temperature. The anti traditional physics people are saying this cooled mass of atmosphere cannot cause the surface at -29 to be warmer than it would be if there was no mass of -30 atmosphere present. The traditional physics people would say that without the -30 atmosphere the surface would be for example -50 or some lower temperature Unfortunately it is not an easy thing to explain. The anti traditional physics people tend to keep saying a cold surface cannot heat a warmer surface. Which is true but irrelevant. The sun heats the surface. The atmosphere enables a cooling surface to be warmer. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 27, 2012 17:16:37 GMT
Just a simple question. Is this experiment intended to be analogous to the warm land or ocean surface with a convecting atmosphere above it with varying opacities to infra-red? People here are saying the greenhouse effect is impossible or tiny or insignificant from an atmosphere colder than the surface . This is however contrary to traditional physics. So for example in traditional physics if you take a massive amount of heated air to high in the atmosphere and it cools somehow to -30, then in traditional physics, this cold mass is able to cause the temperature below to be warmer than it would be with no -30 mass above the surface - regardless of the earths temperature. The anti traditional physics people are saying this cooled mass of atmosphere cannot cause the surface at -29 to be warmer than it would be if there was no mass of -30 atmosphere present. The traditional physics people would say that without the -30 atmosphere the surface would be for example -50 or some lower temperature Unfortunately it is not an easy thing to explain. The anti traditional physics people tend to keep saying a cold surface cannot heat a warmer surface. Which is true but irrelevant. The sun heats the surface. The atmosphere enables a cooling surface to be warmer. Convection prevents the surface from becoming unlivable; it would be unbearably hot. It short circuits whatever greenhouse effect (however you wish to define it) attempting to warm it. If the traditional GHE physics worked as advertised for the earth's atmosphere, there should be a strong signal over the tropics (the equator) in the satellite data. It doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 27, 2012 17:25:19 GMT
People here are saying the greenhouse effect is impossible or tiny or insignificant from an atmosphere colder than the surface . This is however contrary to traditional physics. So for example in traditional physics if you take a massive amount of heated air to high in the atmosphere and it cools somehow to -30, then in traditional physics, this cold mass is able to cause the temperature below to be warmer than it would be with no -30 mass above the surface - regardless of the earths temperature. The anti traditional physics people are saying this cooled mass of atmosphere cannot cause the surface at -29 to be warmer than it would be if there was no mass of -30 atmosphere present. The traditional physics people would say that without the -30 atmosphere the surface would be for example -50 or some lower temperature Unfortunately it is not an easy thing to explain. The anti traditional physics people tend to keep saying a cold surface cannot heat a warmer surface. Which is true but irrelevant. The sun heats the surface. The atmosphere enables a cooling surface to be warmer. Convection prevents the surface from becoming unlivable; it would be unbearably hot. It short circuits whatever greenhouse effect (however you wish to define it) attempting to warm it. If the traditional GHE physics worked as advertised for the earth's atmosphere, there should be a strong signal over the tropics (the equator) in the satellite data. It doesn't exist. 1. Why would there be a strong satellite data signal at the equator? 2. Can you confirm you are saying that traditional physics is wrong regarding radiation heating calculations from hot to cooler surfaces? 3. I am more interested in the radiation heat calculations being wrong than anything else here for the time being. 4. You have objected to all my experiments and for no good reason that I can understand. In this thread i have asked you to comment on a simple experiment i am about to do so i know in advance what you think of it. It can be modified to take account of reasonable objections. I want to get this sorted out, and ended. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 28, 2012 4:50:59 GMT
2. Can you confirm you are saying that traditional physics is wrong regarding radiation heating calculations from hot to cooler surfaces?
3. I am more interested in the radiation heat calculations being wrong than anything else here for the time being.
4. You have objected to all my experiments and for no good reason that I can understand. In this thread i have asked you to comment on a simple experiment i am about to do so i know in advance what you think of it. It can be modified to take account of reasonable objections. I want to get this sorted out, and ended.
I don't see anything wrong with the radiation calculations per se.
The problem I see is in the application of that to the problem. Rest assured I have been using Modtran myself to deduce the actual effects of greenhouse gases.
The most interesting thing and probably the only thing we can learn from your experiment is the effect is temporary at best.
Once the bricks are in balance with the forces acting on them there will be zero greenhouse effect from the radiation calculations alone and in your sauna room.
The only real question in your experiment is how the temp difference between hotter inner and hotter outer arose in the first place. . . .and I have not ruled out your theory in that. Its just interesting to watch the system respond and shed the difference, not at absolute zero but at the environmental temperature. . . .which it is clearly on target for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 28, 2012 7:22:16 GMT
2. Can you confirm you are saying that traditional physics is wrong regarding radiation heating calculations from hot to cooler surfaces?
3. I am more interested in the radiation heat calculations being wrong than anything else here for the time being.
4. You have objected to all my experiments and for no good reason that I can understand. In this thread i have asked you to comment on a simple experiment i am about to do so i know in advance what you think of it. It can be modified to take account of reasonable objections. I want to get this sorted out, and ended.I don't see anything wrong with the radiation calculations per se. The problem I see is in the application of that to the problem. Rest assured I have been using Modtran myself to deduce the actual effects of greenhouse gases. The most interesting thing and probably the only thing we can learn from your experiment is the effect is temporary at best. Once the bricks are in balance with the forces acting on them there will be zero greenhouse effect from the radiation calculations alone and in your sauna room. The only real question in your experiment is how the temp difference between hotter inner and hotter outer arose in the first place. . . .and I have not ruled out your theory in that. Its just interesting to watch the system respond and shed the difference, not at absolute zero but at the environmental temperature. . . .which it is clearly on target for. The effect is not temporary - it lasts as long as there is cooling. If the brick was heated then there would be permanent cooling: 1. On one side the brick cools to the distant environment at 14C. Where the bricks ability to warm at a distance is not very high. 2. On the other side the hot brick cools partly via a very close object where the bricks ability to warm that close object is higher. 3. Radiation law as demonstrated by radiation calculations do the rest. -------------------------- I found putting the bricks closer gives a better warming effect of the cold brick but the differential temperature on the hot block does not seem to reflect that so much |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 28, 2012 17:33:43 GMT
The most interesting thing and probably the only thing we can learn from your experiment is the effect is temporary at best.
The effect is not temporary - it lasts as long as there is cooling. If the brick was heated then there would be permanent cooling:
But in our world cooling only goes on part time.
It also warms. Warming equals cooling. Thus daily these skin temperature increases can reverse from one side to another.
Ostensibly the warming equals the cooling and you can argue you have the same effect as having cooling ended permanently.
Additionally, such a cooling gradient would only necessarily exist if the warming source were from one side and did not have to first pass through the warm brick before warming the hot brick and then have to pass back through the warm brick to cool.
You seem in need of a disciplined revision to your definitions of heating and cooling. Heating is a net gain of heat. Cooling is net loss of heat. You seem to want it both ways at your beck and call to make cooling a permanent state.
But if you look at the NASA atmosphere budget the atmosphere gets more heat from the sun than it gets from the ground.
Something is wrong there in the world of climate science which proclaims the atmosphere a better absorber of ground radiation than solar radiation in a model that has the ground radiating at 390watts and the sun that gets through the clouds radiating at 239watts.
I realize the quantity of that error is unique to the Trenberth crowd. But to the modeling crowd its still a deficiency of 341 watts ground IR to 239 watts total solar SW and LW combined.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 28, 2012 18:49:41 GMT
The most interesting thing and probably the only thing we can learn from your experiment is the effect is temporary at best.The effect is not temporary - it lasts as long as there is cooling. If the brick was heated then there would be permanent cooling:But in our world cooling only goes on part time. The Earth system is always cooling to the vast unheatable cold of deep space which is at about 3K. On the hottest day imaginable the system is cooling to space. On the coldest day or night imaginable the system is cooling to space Ie the earth system when cooling to space is heating space. When your air conditioner unit is cooling it is heating the outside air. The Earth system is always cooling to space cooling gradient would only necessarily exist if the warming source were from one sideWrong. as soon as the bricks begin cooling their entire surface is cooler than the interior. The hottest part is the center of the brick. Many different temperature gradients exist inside the brick from the hot core to the cooler edges. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 28, 2012 19:14:53 GMT
The Earth system is always cooling to the vast unheatable cold of deep space which is at about 3K.
On the hottest day imaginable the system is cooling to space. On the coldest day or night imaginable the system is cooling to space
Ie the earth system when cooling to space is heating space.
When your air conditioner unit is cooling it is heating the outside air.
The Earth system is always cooling to space
coolingpresent participle of cool (Verb)
Verb: Become or cause to become less hot.
Cooling is not occurring when an object is gaining heat.
Its difficult to discuss this in English when somebody does not know how to speak the language, wants to make up their own definitions, and extrapolate processes that may or may not be detectable in cooling processes to warming processes also without experiment.
If you would fly back down to the surface from outer space and discuss this in plain language, support your arguments with studies in first principle physics, maybe you could show us something. But under the circumstances it seems you are in imaginary la la land.
Wrong.
as soon as the bricks begin cooling their entire surface is cooler than the interior. The hottest part is the center of the brick.
Many different temperature gradients exist inside the brick from the hot core to the cooler edges.
How many is many?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 28, 2012 19:48:50 GMT
The Earth system is always cooling to the vast unheatable cold of deep space which is at about 3K.
On the hottest day imaginable the system is cooling to space. On the coldest day or night imaginable the system is cooling to space
Ie the earth system when cooling to space is heating space.
When your air conditioner unit is cooling it is heating the outside air.
The Earth system is always cooling to space
coolingpresent participle of cool (Verb)
Verb: Become or cause to become less hot.Cooling is not occurring when an object is gaining heat. Its difficult to discuss this in English when somebody does not know how to speak the language, wants to make up their own definitions, and extrapolate processes that may or may not be detectable in cooling processes to warming processes also without experiment. If you would fly back down to the surface from outer space and discuss this in plain language, support your arguments with studies in first principle physics, maybe you could show us something. But under the circumstances it seems you are in imaginary la la land.
Wrong.
as soon as the bricks begin cooling their entire surface is cooler than the interior. The hottest part is the center of the brick.
Many different temperature gradients exist inside the brick from the hot core to the cooler edges.How many is many? A car radiator is cooling the engine via the water circulation system even as the engine gets hotter. The radiator warms the air. If the water was not surrounding the parts it cools, the cylinders would melt within a few minutes. The earth continually gets heated by the sun and is continually cooling. Energy flows into the earth system and out of the earth system continually. The outwards flow is called cooling. If there is another name for that then i do not know it. Verb: Become or cause to become less hot.It has already been explained to you and Steve that if the earth was not continually cooling it would get hotter than the sun. Become or cause to become less hot. The earth is less hot. It has been caused to become less hot because of the constant cooling. The car engine shortly after starting is caused to become less hot because of the cooling. A light bulb is cooled by radiation to the room or it would quickly melt the white hot filament. When an object is getting hotter some parts are getting cooler and other parts hotter for a net heating. An object is made of atoms and molecules. Some are getting hotter and some are getting colder Are you being cute and obfuscating or are you really unable to understand such simple ideas? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 28, 2012 20:18:27 GMT
A car radiator is cooling the engine via the water circulation system even as the engine gets hotter. The radiator warms the air. If the water was not surrounding the parts it cools, the cylinders would melt within a few minutes.
The earth continually gets heated by the sun and is continually cooling. Energy flows into the earth system and out of the earth system continually.
The outwards flow is called cooling.
If there is another name for that then i do not know it.
The correct word is equilibrating.
Thats all fine because if Magellan proved anything absolutely he proved your omnipresent cooling theory and by extension omnipresent warming effect as false.
By claiming omnipresence there is no external effect that could eliminate it making Magellans test work conclusive. The only thing you can whine about is his equipment failing to pick up this full time effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 28, 2012 22:31:35 GMT
A car radiator is cooling the engine via the water circulation system even as the engine gets hotter. The radiator warms the air. If the water was not surrounding the parts it cools, the cylinders would melt within a few minutes.
The earth continually gets heated by the sun and is continually cooling. Energy flows into the earth system and out of the earth system continually.
The outwards flow is called cooling.
If there is another name for that then i do not know it.The correct word is equilibrating. Thats all fine because if Magellan proved anything absolutely he proved your omnipresent cooling theory and by extension omnipresent warming effect as false. By claiming omnipresence there is no external effect that could eliminate it making Magellans test work conclusive. The only thing you can whine about is his equipment failing to pick up this full time effect. Icefisher you have totally lost the plot now. The earth system is in aproximate equilibrium because it is continually cooling to outerspace in the only way that the Suns energy can leave our planet. Earth is cooled and space warms up. No emission is possible from the surface of the earth without the cooling caused by the loss of energy to outerspace. The only way that the Earth can not become alarmingly hot is by emissions that create immediate cooling. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 28, 2012 23:02:35 GMT
By claiming omnipresence there is no external effect that could eliminate it making Magellans test work conclusive. The only thing you can whine about is his equipment failing to pick up this full time effect.[/quote]
Icefisher you have totally lost the plot now.
The earth system is in aproximate equilibrium because it is continually cooling to outerspace in the only way that the Suns energy can leave our planet. Earth is cooled and space warms up.
No emission is possible from the surface of the earth without the cooling caused by the loss of energy to outerspace.
The only way that the Earth can not become alarmingly hot is by emissions that create immediate cooling.[/color]
Your missing the point. How could Magellan's test not detect it if it is always there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 28, 2012 23:57:46 GMT
By claiming omnipresence there is no external effect that could eliminate it making Magellans test work conclusive. The only thing you can whine about is his equipment failing to pick up this full time effect.Icefisher you have totally lost the plot now. The earth system is in aproximate equilibrium because it is continually cooling to outerspace in the only way that the Suns energy can leave our planet. Earth is cooled and space warms up. No emission is possible from the surface of the earth without the cooling caused by the loss of energy to outerspace. The only way that the Earth can not become alarmingly hot is by emissions that create immediate cooling. [/color] Your missing the point. How could Magellan's test not detect it if it is always there?[/quote] The point was you were whining about the earth not cooling and therefore there is no effect to be detected by Magellan.
I pointed out once again that you lack the knowledge of basic physical principals that you need to understand this topic.
And once again you have totally avoided that to focus on your celibration of Magellan who for you has proven that ideas considered to be facts for the last 300 years are invalidAs for Magellans experiment I have given reasons why i think it is not working for him. Peculiarly he does not like what i say. and most peculiarly he says i am a crook. He has the same kind of potty mouth as you have. |
|
