|
Post by icefisher on Apr 18, 2012 16:09:38 GMT
I have made a mistake. Additional layers do increase the temperature. Foolishly i never used the calculator last time If the cold surface is 331.2C and 341W of heat loss occurs then the heated core surface temperature rises to 366.5C Using the calculator one more time for 0 and 366.5 gives 1023W of emission from the core surface So as you said 682 backradiates and then 1023W go up for a heat loss of 341W and i dont think you need to make any other changes to have it all working correctly? I am trying to follow your methodology so I have no confusion. I think I am seeing a radiation process that adds a 682 total radiation potential to the surface of the ball for each layer of absorption by blackbody spheres. 341 682341 682 1364682 1023 20461023 1364 27281364 The yellow numbers being the SB radiative power for three spheres and the white numbers being the actual paths of radiation. And the orange number is the surface of the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Apr 18, 2012 16:36:27 GMT
I think your figures are wrong. Please check versus mine below. I added a third ring by making the heated core smaller, so all the outer numbers remain the same. I checked thru all of my figures and they seem right to me. ----------------working method--------------------------------------------------------- You need to remember Iceskaters law of dead body warming Any heated surface becomes warmer until the heating force is balanced by the cooling force. So the heated outer shell receives the entire energy of the 341W heat source in the core, and it begins warming up, but only emits at the SB rate for this low temperature, but as it warms it emits more at the new warmer SB rate Eventually it is sufficiently warm that all heating energy is being discharged as a cooling force at the higher emission rate for the warmer temperature. ----------------------------------------------------------- Using the SB calculator with emissivity of 1 and 1M2 hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3You will find that 341w of heat loss occurs from a surface at 278.5K with surroundings of 3K Therefore 278.5K is the temperature of the outershell, since all of the energy of the 341W heat source has to be lost from this surface going back to the SB calculator we find for two surfaces where the colder surface is 278.5 and the heat loss from the hotter surface is 341W that the hotter surface is 331.2K So outer shell is at 278.5K lower shell that heats the 278.5 shell is 331.2K So across each vacuum gap there will be a net loss of 341W 341W = hotter upwards emission - colder downwards emission 341W heat loss = 331.2K emission - 278.5K emission 341W heat loss = 682W emission - 341W emission (Putting 0 Kelvin in the calculator for cold surface temperature enables total emission to be calculated for each temperature.)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 30, 2012 15:34:51 GMT
sorry for the long day in responding but I have been really busy.
thats a fine description. Off the top it seems no different than a theory where heat always travels from hot to cold (potential heat transfer) except no backradiation is required.
Could beating the drum for backradiation be in fact irrelevant?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on May 2, 2012 12:24:56 GMT
sorry for the long day in responding but I have been really busy. thats a fine description. Off the top it seems no different than a theory where heat always travels from hot to cold (potential heat transfer) except no backradiation is required. Could beating the drum for backradiation be in fact irrelevant? sigh
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 16, 2013 4:05:10 GMT
I think your figures are wrong. Please check versus mine below. I added a third ring by making the heated core smaller, so all the outer numbers remain the same. I checked thru all of my figures and they seem right to me. ----------------working method--------------------------------------------------------- You need to remember Iceskaters law of dead body warming Any heated surface becomes warmer until the heating force is balanced by the cooling force. So the heated outer shell receives the entire energy of the 341W heat source in the core, and it begins warming up, but only emits at the SB rate for this low temperature, but as it warms it emits more at the new warmer SB rate Eventually it is sufficiently warm that all heating energy is being discharged as a cooling force at the higher emission rate for the warmer temperature. ----------------------------------------------------------- Using the SB calculator with emissivity of 1 and 1M2 hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3You will find that 341w of heat loss occurs from a surface at 278.5K with surroundings of 3K Therefore 278.5K is the temperature of the outershell, since all of the energy of the 341W heat source has to be lost from this surface going back to the SB calculator we find for two surfaces where the colder surface is 278.5 and the heat loss from the hotter surface is 341W that the hotter surface is 331.2K So outer shell is at 278.5K lower shell that heats the 278.5 shell is 331.2K So across each vacuum gap there will be a net loss of 341W 341W = hotter upwards emission - colder downwards emission 341W heat loss = 331.2K emission - 278.5K emission 341W heat loss = 682W emission - 341W emission (Putting 0 Kelvin in the calculator for cold surface temperature enables total emission to be calculated for each temperature.) OK I found the original diagram which has the same formulas but starts with an objective of 341watts output instead of the 400 I used in the new diagram. to put this one in perspective from temperature, the outer sphere is emitting 341 watts to space and has a temperature of 5C which for a blackbody in the earth's orbit would need to emit to maintain a steady temperature. So the inner sphere the radiation from which is absorbed completely 3 times on its way to space has to be driven at the surface by 1364 watts. This would be the 341 watts it gets from sunlight supplemented by 1023 watts of backradiation. the temperature of this inner sphere planet/rock/moon whatever with a IR opaque atmosphere would have an average surface temperature of 120.8C or about 250F plenty to bake a chicken. Of course CO2 or water vapor is not a complete IR absorber so this is just an exercise study in backradiation.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 3, 2013 13:50:19 GMT
Late to the discussion. But may I point out a 'meta' problem here. This approach to explaining the atmosphere is the reason that we have the problem with GCMs we have to day.
Almost all mathematicians approach these problems by saying "let us say that (name a complex chaotic system) is really a point source with simple behavior. From this we get ....." then they proceed to any number of complex maths based on similarly simplified physics and forget entirely that the simplification at the beginning ensures that whatever they calculate is always wrong in unforecastable ways.
So we see the assumption that Stefan Boltzmann equations apply within a dynamic mixture of various fluids and aerosols with varying levels of opacity (in Stefan Boltzmann terms breaking the rules by going inside the hohlraum); they accept the radiative gases absorption of infrared but neglect its radiation of infrared from energy gained by collision; they equate heat with temperature in a mixture of gases with varying enthalpy; they forget the effects of latent heat; they even assume totally static fluids and instantaneous effects (the so called slab atmosphere). Then they use algorithms describing this oversimplified model to model a chaotic system of interacting chaotic subsystems on computing equipment that has varying precision both hardware and software, is often multiprocessing with no correction for timing issues (races). The resultant hash is then parameterized heavily to 'tune' the results to match previous observations then allowed to run and called a projection of the climate out often decades to centuries.
This entire mess shows a less than undergraduate understanding of what is being done. Is it any wonder that NONE of the GCMs are close to correct?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 3, 2013 18:54:46 GMT
Late to the discussion. But may I point out a 'meta' problem here. This approach to explaining the atmosphere is the reason that we have the problem with GCMs we have to day. Almost all mathematicians approach these problems by saying "let us say that (name a complex chaotic system) is really a point source with simple behavior. From this we get ....." then they proceed to any number of complex maths based on similarly simplified physics and forget entirely that the simplification at the beginning ensures that whatever they calculate is always wrong in unforecastable ways. So we see the assumption that Stefan Boltzmann equations apply within a dynamic mixture of various fluids and aerosols with varying levels of opacity (in Stefan Boltzmann terms breaking the rules by going inside the hohlraum); they accept the radiative gases absorption of infrared but neglect its radiation of infrared from energy gained by collision; they equate heat with temperature in a mixture of gases with varying enthalpy; they forget the effects of latent heat; they even assume totally static fluids and instantaneous effects (the so called slab atmosphere). Then they use algorithms describing this oversimplified model to model a chaotic system of interacting chaotic subsystems on computing equipment that has varying precision both hardware and software, is often multiprocessing with no correction for timing issues (races). The resultant hash is then parameterized heavily to 'tune' the results to match previous observations then allowed to run and called a projection of the climate out often decades to centuries. This entire mess shows a less than undergraduate understanding of what is being done. Is it any wonder that NONE of the GCMs are close to correct? Nautonnier I am certainly no fan of models of the atmosphere as a way to deterimine what is real however the basic principle is so simple that it would be highly ignorant to dismiss it entirely. You are being pretty arrogant to dismiss people like Tyndall as having less than an undergraduates understanding It was perfectly clear when you were talking about heat transport in the atmosphere a few weeks ago that you do not know much about the topic of heat transport in the atmosphere. And it appears that like Icefisher and Magellan you like to broadcast but you are not willing to listen and interact.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Aug 4, 2013 23:20:20 GMT
just asking whats this about ?? the sun heating the earth if so the your way off if not then whats the point ? if it is the sun then 3/4 to 2/3 of the sphere will be losing heat and only a 1/4 to 1/3 will be receiving at full to lesser degrees
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 20, 2013 2:41:24 GMT
just asking whats this about ?? the sun heating the earth if so the your way off if not then whats the point ? if it is the sun then 3/4 to 2/3 of the sphere will be losing heat and only a 1/4 to 1/3 will be receiving at full to lesser degrees Flearider Another way to consider the same thing is to consider what would happen if the Sun was surrounded by different sizes of large asteroid belt at a distance of 20m miles from the Sun, where the internal temperature of the Sun is thought to be about 15,000,000C but the cooling outer surface is only 5,500C and the more distant space is mainly -269C You would expect the Sun to be hotter for larger mass asteroid belts at the same distance from the Sun than the Sun would be for smaller mass asteroid belts. Ie the larger mass belts have more surface area of asteroid between the Sun and space. If you then reduced the asteroid belt to an impenetrable dust cloud then, from our observers point of view on Earth, the outer surface of the dust cloud would be the Sun we would see. The sun we would see would then be much larger but cooler because the surface area of the cloud is larger than the surface area of the Sun. We would though still get the same amount of energy at the top of our atmosphere as before*** but the surface temperature of the hidden original Sun would now be much more hotter than before. *** Assuming the hotter surface area of the Sun did not alter the internal heat generating ability of the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Aug 20, 2013 9:41:54 GMT
well no .. you put a small joint of beef in the oven and a lrg one there both going to get to 180 degc just one will take longer ..
if you put a impenetrable dust cloud you would not see the sun ...the sun is generating heat you have now put it in a closed space after time the cloud will give off the same heat as before but whats that got to do with the earth are you going to cover it with a impenetrable dust cloud ?
if what you are trying to say is the earth is heating up because of the sun... think about it we would all be dead and the planet would be like mars ...
if something has been stable for millions of yrs thru a temp rng and an atmosphere rng .. my best guess is it's going to stay that way ..
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 20, 2013 10:17:48 GMT
well no .. you put a small joint of beef in the oven and a lrg one there both going to get to 180 degc just one will take longer .. if you put a impenetrable dust cloud you would not see the sun ...the sun is generating heat you have now put it in a closed space after time the cloud will give off the same heat as before but whats that got to do with the earth are you going to cover it with a impenetrable dust cloud ? if what you are trying to say is the earth is heating up because of the sun... think about it we would all be dead and the planet would be like mars ... if something has been stable for millions of yrs thru a temp rng and an atmosphere rng .. my best guess is it's going to stay that way .. You are not even thinking about what i am saying. Firstly whatever you are thinking about with your joints of beef, 3 temperatures are involved in what i am talking about. Hot, colder and very cold. If you agree the dust cloud gives off the same heat as the sun then why will you not see the radiant energy coming from the dust cloud that you agree has the same energy level as the Sun?? The beginning point for you to think about before you answer again is you are not even thinking about what i was talking about when i tried to make the subject easier for you to understand and you answered 'well no.' .
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Aug 20, 2013 14:12:57 GMT
plz go speak to a couple of people .. your obsessed with your theory 1)an Astrophysics he will be able to confirm or deny your claim ... 2)a person in mental health to help you with your obsession and what ever stress your under ..
i'm now stepping back from this .. have a nice day ..and I really hope your ok ...
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 20, 2013 14:50:59 GMT
plz go speak to a couple of people .. your obsessed with your theory 1)an Astrophysics he will be able to confirm or deny your claim ... 2)a person in mental health to help you with your obsession and what ever stress your under .. i'm now stepping back from this .. have a nice day ..and I really hope your ok ... It is not my theory. It is mainstream science. A school boy can understand this topic even if it beyond half the people on this board.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 22:07:07 GMT
Late to the discussion. But may I point out a 'meta' problem here. This approach to explaining the atmosphere is the reason that we have the problem with GCMs we have to day. Almost all mathematicians approach these problems by saying "let us say that (name a complex chaotic system) is really a point source with simple behavior. From this we get ....." then they proceed to any number of complex maths based on similarly simplified physics and forget entirely that the simplification at the beginning ensures that whatever they calculate is always wrong in unforecastable ways. So we see the assumption that Stefan Boltzmann equations apply within a dynamic mixture of various fluids and aerosols with varying levels of opacity (in Stefan Boltzmann terms breaking the rules by going inside the hohlraum); they accept the radiative gases absorption of infrared but neglect its radiation of infrared from energy gained by collision; they equate heat with temperature in a mixture of gases with varying enthalpy; they forget the effects of latent heat; they even assume totally static fluids and instantaneous effects (the so called slab atmosphere). Then they use algorithms describing this oversimplified model to model a chaotic system of interacting chaotic subsystems on computing equipment that has varying precision both hardware and software, is often multiprocessing with no correction for timing issues (races). The resultant hash is then parameterized heavily to 'tune' the results to match previous observations then allowed to run and called a projection of the climate out often decades to centuries. This entire mess shows a less than undergraduate understanding of what is being done. Is it any wonder that NONE of the GCMs are close to correct? Just boosting this post to remind us that for a long time the discussion has been about how mathematics has been applied to a model that operates fairly well with bricks that have internal sources of heat. Without those internal sources of heat all that can happen is a redistribution of existing heat. Andrew wants to know what I have been calling out as violations of basic physical laws and what it is in fact the calculations laid out in this thread as being a basic theoretical model of how the greenhouse system operates in the atmosphere. I thought Nautonnier's post here probably says it best.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 8:49:49 GMT
Using the SB calculator hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3You will find that 341w of heat loss occurs from a surface at 278.5K with surroundings of 3K Therefore 278.5K is the temperature of the outershell, since all of the energy of the 341W heat source has to be lost from this surface going back to the SB calculator we find for two surfaces where the colder surface is 278.5 and the heat loss from the hotter surface is 341W that the hotter surface is 331.2K So outer shell is at 278.5K Surface of heated ball is at 331.2K
|
|