|
Post by Andrew on Mar 1, 2012 16:15:33 GMT
The establishment view is that emission cools atoms and molecules and all matter is continually cooling when heated no matter if the temperature rises or falls. You sort of have that backwards. What is in fact true is you are an ignoramous of the English language. Things are not continually cooling while they are being heated. You have a peculiarly narrow view of what is true or false. Emission causes cooling of some elements of matter even though the entire object made of matter is on average getting hotter. One side of a piece of metal gets hotter when heated by a petrol flame and the other side is continually cooled even while it gets hotter. Because the colder side is cooled it is not as hot as the hotter side. And importantly also, the hot side is not as hot as it would be without the cooling that prevents the cylinder fusing to the piston. Matter is not made of a single element. It is made of multiple elements. By your use of language a car does not have a functioning cooling system until it has reached operating temperature. By your reasoning it has a heater. That is why i say you are a scientific moron and ignoramous.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 1, 2012 19:40:04 GMT
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? Can you confirm you are saying that traditional physics is wrong regarding radiation heating calculations from hot to cooler surfaces?I think that is a little of a strawman. Rather like arguing that the weight of all the ships being launched into the sea is what is causing sea level rise - then when people disagree asking them what they find wrong with Archimedes principle. We are fortunate to live on a planet that is largely covered with water and has an atmosphere that has a large percentage of water vapor. Water evaporates into the air from the surface as it takes up the heat of that state change from the surface. The convective action of water vapor (humid air is less dense than dry air at the same temperature and has a far higher enthalpy than dry air) and the convective action of warm air all mean that more heat is carried upward in the atmosphere by convection than is radiated. Some of that heat is actual kinetic energy of molecules and some is latent heat due to the water molecules being in 'vapor' state. When the water vapor condenses into water droplets, or the droplets freeze into ice higher in the atmosphere, the water gives up latent heat which is immediately radiated and is not subject to the limits of Stefan Boltzmann's formula. The latent heat of that state change radiates in all directions of course. But by definition the air around the droplets and ice crystals is at close to 100% humidity or they wouldn't be condensing, so much will be absorbed and only some of that radiation will reach the ground. That which doesn't reach the ground will warm the atmosphere increasing convection and that which is at the top of the clouds radiates through less dense drier air possibly direct to space - again regardless of the temperature. (Temperature in a volume of humid air is NOT the same as its heat content and latent heat is given up regardless of the surrounding temperature) You can check this looking at clouds in infra red on the GOES satellites. The interesting thing with water is that it will evaporate into dry air even if that dry air is cooler, hotter or the same temperature as the surface. This takes latent heat AWAY from the surface and into the air. So a boundary between land and sea with both at the same temperature as the air above them and in a still atmosphere, will start to convect as the water from the sea surface evaporates into the air, the air becomes less dense and rises and is replaced by the surrounding air. The air from the land is drier so the effect will become an offshore breeze and a cooling sea. You can see this on still early mornings over lakes. The cooling water surface will become disturbed by the breeze increasing the surface area for evaporation and allowing the cooler surface water to be replaced by convection of the warmer water below. No need for sun or 'forcing' the system does it all by itself. Unfortunately, the maths of radiation is far easier to show on the back of an envelope than the complexities of the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 1, 2012 20:30:19 GMT
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? Can you confirm you are saying that traditional physics is wrong regarding radiation heating calculations from hot to cooler surfaces?I think that is a little of a strawman. Rather like arguing that the weight of all the ships being launched into the sea is what is causing sea level rise - then when people disagree asking them what they find wrong with Archimedes principle. We are fortunate to live on a planet that is largely covered with water and has an atmosphere that has a large percentage of water vapor. Water evaporates into the air from the surface as it takes up the heat of that state change from the surface. The convective action of water vapor (humid air is less dense than dry air at the same temperature and has a far higher enthalpy than dry air) and the convective action of warm air all mean that more heat is carried upward in the atmosphere by convection than is radiated. Some of that heat is actual kinetic energy of molecules and some is latent heat due to the water molecules being in 'vapor' state. When the water vapor condenses into water droplets, or the droplets freeze into ice higher in the atmosphere, the water gives up latent heat which is immediately radiated and is not subject to the limits of Stefan Boltzmann's formula. The latent heat of that state change radiates in all directions of course. But by definition the air around the droplets and ice crystals is at close to 100% humidity or they wouldn't be condensing, so much will be absorbed and only some of that radiation will reach the ground. That which doesn't reach the ground will warm the atmosphere increasing convection and that which is at the top of the clouds radiates through less dense drier air possibly direct to space - again regardless of the temperature. (Temperature in a volume of humid air is NOT the same as its heat content and latent heat is given up regardless of the surrounding temperature) You can check this looking at clouds in infra red on the GOES satellites. The interesting thing with water is that it will evaporate into dry air even if that dry air is cooler, hotter or the same temperature as the surface. This takes latent heat AWAY from the surface and into the air. So a boundary between land and sea with both at the same temperature as the air above them and in a still atmosphere, will start to convect as the water from the sea surface evaporates into the air, the air becomes less dense and rises and is replaced by the surrounding air. The air from the land is drier so the effect will become an offshore breeze and a cooling sea. You can see this on still early mornings over lakes. The cooling water surface will become disturbed by the breeze increasing the surface area for evaporation and allowing the cooler surface water to be replaced by convection of the warmer water below. No need for sun or 'forcing' the system does it all by itself. Unfortunately, the maths of radiation is far easier to show on the back of an envelope than the complexities of the atmosphere. Nautonnier, as far as I can see we are in fairly strong agreement other than you saying it is a bit of a strawman to ask the question: Can you confirm you are saying that traditional physics is wrong regarding radiation heating calculations from hot to cooler surfaces?Traditional physics/engineering calls these calculations net radiation heat loss curves or calculations. So evidently traditional physics and engineering design supports the idea of back-radiation. Which is the whole point of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2012 20:39:17 GMT
You have a peculiarly narrow view of what is true or false.
Emission causes cooling of some elements of matter even though the entire object made of matter is on average getting hotter.
Definition of cooling: 3. Physics To reduce the molecular or kinetic energy of (an object). v.intr.
If the amount of energy in is greater than the energy out the kinetic energy is not being reduced. I have no idea why it is so difficult for you to wrap you head around that.
One side of a piece of metal gets hotter when heated by a petrol flame and the other side is continually cooled even while it gets hotter. Because the colder side is cooled it is not as hot as the hotter side.
For any steady input of energy and object is either at equilibrium (your 300 year old science) or its warming. It cools only when you reduce the input of energy. If there is no energy input then the object is just the opposite, its either cooling or its absolute zero.
By your use of language a car does not have a functioning cooling system until it has reached operating temperature. By your reasoning it has a heater.
You have switched from objects that have to follow the basic laws of thermodynamics to a machine that employs work. When you employ work you can do stuff not otherwise allowed by the laws of thermodynamics.
That is why i say you are a scientific moron and ignoramous.
Because I can identify the differences between a machine that employs work and an object that has to obey the laws of thermodynamics that you apparently cannot?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 1, 2012 21:14:38 GMT
Definition of cooling: 3. Physics To reduce the molecular or kinetic energy of (an object). v.intr. If the amount of energy in is greater than the energy out the kinetic energy is not being reduced. I have no idea why it is so difficult for you to wrap you head around that. For any steady input of energy and object is either at equilibrium (your 300 year old science) or its warming. It cools only when you reduce the input of energy. If there is no energy input then the object is just the opposite, its either cooling or its absolute zero. The traditional scientific view point is as follows Traditional science is based in heat being vibrating atoms and molecules where you cannot describe the whole of a mass as having an absolutely uniform heat content at the atomic level. When heat flows into an object we call that heating and when the heat flows out of an object we call that cooling. In the case of a thermometer at thermal equilibrium in air we say that the heat flow into the thermometer is equal to the heat flow out of the thermometer Heat flow out of an object is known as cooling. In the case of the Earth/atmosphere system we say that it is in approximate equilibrium over time which means that the heating forces are equal to the cooling forces of the system. Heating and cooling forces are balanced - which is the nature of thermal equilibrium. If the heat content is rising there is still heating and cooling but now heating is higher than cooling. There is no other way of conceptualising it in traditional science For example Lord Kelvin said this in 1874 zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/kinetic_theory.htmlTo take one of the simplest cases of the dissipation of energy, the conduction of heat through a solid—consider a bar of metal warmer at one end than the other and left to itself. ..........Instantly a diffusing of heat commences, and the distribution of temperature becomes continuously less and less unequal, tending to prefect uniformity, but never in any finite time attaining perfectly to this ultimate condition.Because I can identify the differences between a machine that employs work and an object that has to obey the laws of thermodynamics that you apparently cannot? Petrol engines still obey the laws of thermodynamics. There are known combustion heats, frictional forces, atmospheric heating, radiative transfer and what not In your terms the Earth employs the work of the Sun to provide the motive force for much of the atmospheric activity we see on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 2, 2012 1:43:33 GMT
If the heat content is rising there is still heating and cooling but now heating is higher than cooling.
This conversation has gone beyond just pedantic. Sheeeesh get a life! Must be a real pregnant dog hibernating in Finland during the winter.
I suppose next you will want to call black white and white black because one side of an object can be painted black and the other painted white.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 2, 2012 2:29:38 GMT
If the heat content is rising there is still heating and cooling but now heating is higher than cooling.This conversation has gone beyond just pedantic. Sheeeesh get a life! Must be a real pregnant dog hibernating in Finland during the winter. I suppose next you will want to call black white and white black because one side of an object can be painted black and the other painted white. You appear to have incorrect ideas how an object cools where there are an almost infinite number of different temperature gradients thru the object where the layers are heated on one side and cooling on the other. If your understanding ever gets improved that is a an area we could focus onEvidently for some reason you have decided a cooling object cannot be cooling on one side and be heated on the other side. Earlier you said something about the object being of uniform temperature? And does it cool from the inside out or the inside in? And posed this to me like you had something important to tell me.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 2, 2012 3:19:53 GMT
[ You never answered my question about the cooling of the ball. If you put a ball heated evenly to 300K in a 100K environment, what cools first the surface or the core?. The answer is fundamental to the idea of a delayed cooling on the part of the core. If the surface cools first how do the last watts in the core get out? You need to make an argument here to support your view of delayed cooling. Perhaps you can explain your ideas of how a ball cools please?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 2, 2012 3:25:48 GMT
Definition of cooling: 3. Physics To reduce the molecular or kinetic energy of (an object). v.intr. If the amount of energy in is greater than the energy out the kinetic energy is not being reduced. I have no idea why it is so difficult for you to wrap you head around that. For any steady input of energy and object is either at equilibrium (your 300 year old science) or its warming. It cools only when you reduce the input of energy. If there is no energy input then the object is just the opposite, its either cooling or its absolute zero. The traditional scientific view point is as follows Traditional science is based in heat being vibrating atoms and molecules where you cannot describe the whole of a mass as having an absolutely uniform heat content at the atomic level. When heat flows into an object we call that heating and when the heat flows out of an object we call that cooling. In the case of a thermometer at thermal equilibrium in air we say that the heat flow into the thermometer is equal to the heat flow out of the thermometer Heat flow out of an object is known as cooling. In the case of the Earth/atmosphere system we say that it is in approximate equilibrium over time which means that the heating forces are equal to the cooling forces of the system. Heating and cooling forces are balanced - which is the nature of thermal equilibrium. If the heat content is rising there is still heating and cooling but now heating is higher than cooling. There is no other way of conceptualising it in traditional science For example Lord Kelvin said this in 1874 zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/kinetic_theory.htmlTo take one of the simplest cases of the dissipation of energy, the conduction of heat through a solid—consider a bar of metal warmer at one end than the other and left to itself. ..........Instantly a diffusing of heat commences, and the distribution of temperature becomes continuously less and less unequal, tending to prefect uniformity, but never in any finite time attaining perfectly to this ultimate condition.Because I can identify the differences between a machine that employs work and an object that has to obey the laws of thermodynamics that you apparently cannot? Petrol engines still obey the laws of thermodynamics. There are known combustion heats, frictional forces, atmospheric heating, radiative transfer and what not In your terms the Earth employs the work of the Sun to provide the motive force for much of the atmospheric activity we see on Earth. To take one of the simplest cases of the dissipation of energy, the conduction of heat through a solid—consider a bar of metal warmer at one end than the other and left to itself. ..........Instantly a diffusing of heat commences, and the distribution of temperature becomes continuously less and less unequal, tending to prefect uniformity, but never in any finite time attaining perfectly to this ultimate condition. No kidding. Gee, how could we have ever known without you. You thought there were some magical magnetic powers in the granite plate when I stated the warmed object conducting to the granite was cooling much more rapidly than the top. Remember? Did you delete that too? No wonder. Personally I didn't think it was a big deal considering we use the plate to cool hot sandwiches on one side, then flip them over for the other side. Amazing isn't it? Yes Iceskater, your test was a joke. Nothing calibrated. No equipment list with stated accuracies. Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 2, 2012 3:38:21 GMT
The traditional scientific view point is as follows Traditional science is based in heat being vibrating atoms and molecules where you cannot describe the whole of a mass as having an absolutely uniform heat content at the atomic level. When heat flows into an object we call that heating and when the heat flows out of an object we call that cooling. In the case of a thermometer at thermal equilibrium in air we say that the heat flow into the thermometer is equal to the heat flow out of the thermometer Heat flow out of an object is known as cooling. In the case of the Earth/atmosphere system we say that it is in approximate equilibrium over time which means that the heating forces are equal to the cooling forces of the system. Heating and cooling forces are balanced - which is the nature of thermal equilibrium. If the heat content is rising there is still heating and cooling but now heating is higher than cooling. There is no other way of conceptualising it in traditional science For example Lord Kelvin said this in 1874 zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/kinetic_theory.htmlTo take one of the simplest cases of the dissipation of energy, the conduction of heat through a solid—consider a bar of metal warmer at one end than the other and left to itself. ..........Instantly a diffusing of heat commences, and the distribution of temperature becomes continuously less and less unequal, tending to prefect uniformity, but never in any finite time attaining perfectly to this ultimate condition.Because I can identify the differences between a machine that employs work and an object that has to obey the laws of thermodynamics that you apparently cannot? Petrol engines still obey the laws of thermodynamics. There are known combustion heats, frictional forces, atmospheric heating, radiative transfer and what not In your terms the Earth employs the work of the Sun to provide the motive force for much of the atmospheric activity we see on Earth. To take one of the simplest cases of the dissipation of energy, the conduction of heat through a solid—consider a bar of metal warmer at one end than the other and left to itself. ..........Instantly a diffusing of heat commences, and the distribution of temperature becomes continuously less and less unequal, tending to prefect uniformity, but never in any finite time attaining perfectly to this ultimate condition. No kidding. Gee, how could we have ever known without you. You thought there were some magical magnetic powers in the granite plate when I stated the warmed object conducting to the granite was cooling much more rapidly than the top. Remember? Did you delete that too? No wonder. Yes Iceskater, your test was a joke. Nothing calibrated. No equipment list with stated accuracies. Nothing. You are pretty arrogant for somebody who cannot demonstrate what is expected to happen according to well known, well published net radiation heat loss curves that have the backing of hundreds of years of scientific thinking. My thermometers did not require absolute calibration. I only required that the thermometers showed the same readings when placed together at various approximate but stable temperatures. I replaced one thermometer that read .4cm higher than the other 3, and I arranged the thermometers so that the readings I found during the relative calibrations were opposite to the effect I was expecting to see. Even so, these thermometers showed a remarkable ability to display very similar readings when in the same environment, so that an experimentally observed 'temperature' difference of 1 was highly significant . Generally speaking i just kept getting the result you would expect from established ideas about heat. Whereas you ridiculed me and failed to find the results that mainstream science would expect you to get. We still do not know why you failed to get the expected results. But i still think you do not understand what you were supposed to be constructing to do the test. Why else would you attack me for getting the results expected when you failed?? I tried to help you analyse why you could not get the expected results and yet you are still ridiculing me for my efforts You thought there were some magical magnetic powers in the granite plate when I stated the warmed object conducting to the granite was cooling much more rapidly than the top. Remember? Did you delete that too? No wonder.Strange how you feel some need to ridicule me when you could not get the expected results. It was me saying that your results might be impacted by conduction, or some problems with the granite where if you were scientific you would at least consider that. Instead you attacked me for considering it Besides you seem to have no awareness that I am expecting that granite will 'suck heat out of an object' if it colder than the the environment. All my experiments have demonstrated only what mainstream science would expect you to see And you ridiculed every one of them. All of my experiments were just variations on what Roy Spencer said would happen. And yet strangely you kept repeating i was changing the goal posts. I changed nothing of any consequence in all the weeks you were accusing me of being a crook and incompetant.
|
|