|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2013 11:22:41 GMT
Come on Icefisher! Move this forwards If you turn on a light bulb in a -20C environment and a healthy naked woman comes near the light, then the filament becomes hotter. You know this is true. If you have two light bulbs surrounded by a vacuum in a -20C environment then each burns brighter as they are moved closer together. You know that is true also. So now you are claiming the earth is getting nearer to the sun and warming the sun up?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 9, 2013 12:48:29 GMT
the MCSV molecular screen model has no limit. . . Error!on the molecular screen model as currently you can add as many layers as you want without limit. Error! more layers cannot raise the temperature beyond that of the source of heat [/i][/quote]LOL! Netted radiation means the cool object does not warm the warm object. What warms the earth is the sun in accordance with Stefan's law. Correctthe sun is 5500 degrees and will provide the warming CorrectLets see your formula, established in peer reviewed science, of how a 5500 degree sun, 93 million miles away, is going to warm the surface because the earth's surface cooling rate dropped a bit. If you can do that you might make a believer out of me. A well insulated object will always rise in temperature towards the temperature of the heat source>>Aug 6, 2013 at 2:07pm iceskater said: You are using a light as your heat source in recent comments. if the light is no longer directly able to see 4k but instead sees 298K it loses heat less quickly and has to get hotter Icefisher said: Has to get hotter? From what? It is totally beyond me why you dont understand this. It is a first priciple observation of the consequences of the stephan boltzmann constant.[/i][/quote]What is obvious from the Stefan Boltzmann constant is the slowing of cooling. It does not address the warming from a slowing of cooling. Is there a law that does that? [/quote] Come on man! If your car radiator does not cool very well the car gets hotter!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 9, 2013 12:52:33 GMT
Come on Icefisher! Move this forwards If you turn on a light bulb in a -20C environment and a healthy naked woman comes near the light, then the filament becomes hotter. You know this is true. If you have two light bulbs surrounded by a vacuum in a -20C environment then each burns brighter as they are moved closer together. You know that is true also. So now you are claiming the earth is getting nearer to the sun and warming the sun up? If the sun is a constant source of heat and the earth slows down and the orbit reduces then the sun will get warmer. It is basic physics that a school boy can understand. Meanwhile you cannot even understand how a car overheats when the radiator gets clogged up You are beyond all hope of being educated in this topic
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2013 20:11:25 GMT
I can understand how a car overheats when its cooling system fails. An engineering schematic can explain that.
We agree any warming from adding CO2 to the surface has to come from the sun.
Simply waving your arms and screaming: "By God a car engine warms if the cooling mechanism fails" falls considerably short of an engineering schematic for the surface warming to estimate the amount of warming deriving from how much the earth can warm the sun to generate the necessary input energy.
I have seen no evidence the backradiation model actually works. However even if we assume it does work it does not provide enough additional heat to drive the surface warming predicted from a reduction in cooling.
Since the sun is not entirely in the sphere of influence of the earth (the earth would need to encapsulate the sun for that to be the case) the earth's influence is limited to 1365/2,200,000,000 of a watt, or .000000622 watts/m2.
We know that because of the solar constant that specifies that earth only intercepts around 1/2,200,000,000th of the solar output.
Thats why you cannot draw a schematic of this . . . .namely you don't want to because the result would be far to small even when somebody assumes a backradiation model of molecular screens around the earth.
Drawing the schematic is actually relatively easy, the only thing not easy is getting you to accept the result.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 9, 2013 21:23:28 GMT
I can understand how a car overheats when its cooling system fails. An engineering schematic can explain that. We agree any warming from adding CO2 to the surface has to come from the sun. Simply waving your arms and screaming: "By God a car engine warms if the cooling mechanism fails" falls considerably short of an engineering schematic for the surface warming to estimate the amount of warming deriving from how much the earth can warm the sun to generate the necessary input energy. I have seen no evidence the backradiation model actually works. However even if we assume it does work it does not provide enough additional heat to drive the surface warming predicted from a reduction in cooling. Since the sun is not entirely in the sphere of influence of the earth (the earth would need to encapsulate the sun for that to be the case) the earth's influence is limited to 1365/2,200,000,000 of a watt, or .000000622 watts/m2. We know that because of the solar constant that specifies that earth only intercepts around 1/2,200,000,000th of the solar output. Thats why you cannot draw a schematic of this . . . .namely you don't want to because the result would be far to small even when somebody assumes a backradiation model of molecular screens around the earth. Drawing the schematic is actually relatively easy, the only thing not easy is getting you to accept the result. So a light bulb that is near a colder object that is warmer than the colder surrounding environment will burn brighter than when the colder object is not present. The reduction in cooling is calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann formula.It is just simple scientific and engineering principles Similarly two warm bricks in a cold sauna we always be warmer between the faces that are closest to each other Backradiation from the Earth causes the sun to burn brighter by some small amount >>Thats why you cannot draw a schematic of this Rubbish. If you place more earths around the sun then you have your molecular screen model on a larger scale and the sun will be much hotter. This is just simple engineering So all you need to do now is remove all the garbage in the header to this thread where you are talking total nonesense. Once all the errors are removed i will be in a better position to read what you have said and make sense of it. >>One of the five major jobs of an auditor is to ensure consistency of treatment throughout the entire accounting system. Please allow me to complete my audit of your work without interference or obfuscation. There are many errors in your presentation which you seem unable to correct no matter how many times it is explained to you that your work is full of simple errors. After 18 months it appears we have made no progress so far in enabling me to certify your account where right from the beginning i have told you your account is shot through with simple errors. If you wish to put into writing that you are objecting to the cooling reduction calculated from the stephan boltzmann formula please do so and i can certify your work with a note to that effect that your work is not based on engineering or scientific principles and that should be satisfactory for my purposes.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 10, 2013 0:30:07 GMT
So a light bulb that is near a colder object that is warmer than 4k will burn brighter than if the colder object is not present. The reduction in cooling is calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann formula.It is just simple scientific and engineering principles Similarly two warm bricks in a cold sauna we always be warmer between the faces that are closest to each other Backradiation from the Earth causes the sun to burn brighter by some small amount >>Thats why you cannot draw a schematic of this Rubbish. If you place more earths around the sun then you have your molecular screen model on a larger scale and the sun will be much hotter. This is just simple engineering So all you need to do now is remove all the garbage in the header to this thread where you are talking total nonesense. Once all the errors are removed i will be in a better position to read what you have said and make sense of it. >>One of the five major jobs of an auditor is to ensure consistency of treatment throughout the entire accounting system. Please allow me to complete my audit of your work without interference or obfuscation. There are many errors in your presentation which you seem unable to correct no matter how many times it is explained to you that your work is full of simple errors. You apparently believe arm waving is science. You claim errors but cannot provide a single references that identifies one. You claim the sun is capable of warming the surface when the surface cooling is reduced but have failed to provide any evidence of such a fact if the earth were a mile from the sun much less 93 million miles. Arm waving is all you provide. Take our radiant heating system. Lets say you have water flowing out of a reservoir into a labyrinth of black copper piping heated by the sun to 120F degrees. This water drains by gravity into a labyrinth of piping installed in a floor slab of an insulated house and warms the house which is in a 70F degree environment. From there the water pours into the ocean. You claim that by insulating the house sufficiently you will be able to cause the house to heat to more than 120F degrees. Its complete and unadulterated hogwash! You have purely invented this to support the molecular screen model you have offered up as mainstream climate science. You cannot sustain that view with a shred of science as it implies insulation heats objects without limits as does your molecular screen model. I have to wonder if your explanation is going to be heat backing up current through the pipes heating the water running into the house of if you are going for a model to heat the water going down stream in the ocean, in turn warming the ocean, which in turn warms the sun, which in turn warms the reservoir the water from which runs into the house. What you have here Iceskater is a method of creating almost unlimited energy without using any energy. You are truly bizarre. I can see how somebody could be taken in by this kind of model intially. But after being carefully walked through its absurdities, its hard to believe folks still believe in it. May as well believe in the tooth fairy. Fact is how much heat is available from the sun is limited by the product of the solar constant and the Stefan Boltzmann constant. The solar constant varies some because of solar cycles and because the earth's orbit does change. But beyond that relatively small variation the Stefan Boltzmann constant does not provide any latitude to tap into the energy of the surface of the sun. So thats a fail as a source of heat above the current Stefan Boltzmann equation figure as modified by the solar constant. Finally you want me to put my proposal into writing but this thread has always been about a molecular screen model that we have only recently been able to glance at the required external input that is required to come from the sun. It took 18 months for you to admit to that having previously trying to bounce back and forth without taking a position. Only after spending 18 months poisoning the backradiation well as a source of warming the surface have you just in the last couple of days or so admitted it has to come from the sun. Now you need to provide the calculation consistent with the solar constant and the Stefan Boltzmann constant that shows more than what the planet already absorbs is available on demand. Its not up to me to do that for you. If you have an issue with the alternative model you need to provide the paragaph number, a description of what is wrong and a link to a science article on the topic that disputes the model. If the item is missing information then you need to provide a rationale for the need for the information and of course a description of what is missing. I can't respond to a pair of arms waving from across the Atlantic Ocean.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 10, 2013 4:34:29 GMT
So a light bulb that is near a colder object that is warmer than 4k will burn brighter than if the colder object is not present. The reduction in cooling is calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann formula.It is just simple scientific and engineering principles Similarly two warm bricks in a cold sauna we always be warmer between the faces that are closest to each other Backradiation from the Earth causes the sun to burn brighter by some small amount >>Thats why you cannot draw a schematic of this Rubbish. If you place more earths around the sun then you have your molecular screen model on a larger scale and the sun will be much hotter. This is just simple engineering So all you need to do now is remove all the garbage in the header to this thread where you are talking total nonesense. Once all the errors are removed i will be in a better position to read what you have said and make sense of it. >>One of the five major jobs of an auditor is to ensure consistency of treatment throughout the entire accounting system. Please allow me to complete my audit of your work without interference or obfuscation. There are many errors in your presentation which you seem unable to correct no matter how many times it is explained to you that your work is full of simple errors. You apparently believe arm waving is science. You claim errors but cannot provide a single references that identifies one. You claim the sun is capable of warming the surface when the surface cooling is reduced but have failed to provide any evidence of such a fact if the earth were a mile from the sun much less 93 million miles. Arm waving is all you provide. Take our radiant heating system. Lets say you have water flowing out of a reservoir into a labyrinth of black copper piping heated by the sun to 120F degrees. This water drains by gravity into a labyrinth of piping installed in a floor slab of an insulated house and warms the house which is in a 70F degree environment. From there the water pours into the ocean. You claim that by insulating the house sufficiently you will be able to cause the house to heat to more than 120F degrees. Its complete and unadulterated hogwash! You have purely invented this to support the molecular screen model you have offered up as mainstream climate science. You cannot sustain that view with a shred of science as it implies insulation heats objects without limits as does your molecular screen model. I have to wonder if your explanation is going to be heat backing up current through the pipes heating the water running into the house of if you are going for a model to heat the water going down stream in the ocean, in turn warming the ocean, which in turn warms the sun, which in turn warms the reservoir the water from which runs into the house. What you have here Iceskater is a method of creating almost unlimited energy without using any energy. You are truly bizarre. I can see how somebody could be taken in by this kind of model intially. But after being carefully walked through its absurdities, its hard to believe folks still believe in it. May as well believe in the tooth fairy. Fact is how much heat is available from the sun is limited by the product of the solar constant and the Stefan Boltzmann constant. The solar constant varies some because of solar cycles and because the earth's orbit does change. But beyond that relatively small variation the Stefan Boltzmann constant does not provide any latitude to tap into the energy of the surface of the sun. So thats a fail as a source of heat above the current Stefan Boltzmann equation figure as modified by the solar constant. Finally you want me to put my proposal into writing but this thread has always been about a molecular screen model that we have only recently been able to glance at the required external input that is required to come from the sun. It took 18 months for you to admit to that having previously trying to bounce back and forth without taking a position. Only after spending 18 months poisoning the backradiation well as a source of warming the surface have you just in the last couple of days or so admitted it has to come from the sun. Now you need to provide the calculation consistent with the solar constant and the Stefan Boltzmann constant that shows more than what the planet already absorbs is available on demand. Its not up to me to do that for you. If you have an issue with the alternative model you need to provide the paragaph number, a description of what is wrong and a link to a science article on the topic that disputes the model. If the item is missing information then you need to provide a rationale for the need for the information and of course a description of what is missing. I can't respond to a pair of arms waving from across the Atlantic Ocean. You are a devious little bastard The usual method of heating a house is to circulate water. Almost nobody in the history of the planet has taken cold water out of reservoir and heated it and then dumped the warm water in the ocean as a method of heating their house. >>What you have here Iceskater is a method of creating almost unlimited energy without using any energy Error! If a house is sufficiently well insulated you dont need any heating system at all. It can be heated by the warmth of the humans inside it. If the heating source is 6500 degrees and you insulate the house sufficiently well the people inside will cook. A school boy can understand these very simple ideas. Demonstrably you are a moron
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 10, 2013 4:40:11 GMT
You are a devious little bastard The usual method of heating a house is to circulate water. Almost nobody in the history of the planet has taken cold water out of reservoir and heated it and then dumped the warm water in the ocean as a method of heating their house. Good riddance. Well this is how the sun does it. It extracts energy from its reservoir emits it via radiation never to return, the earth can capture only as much of the sky that its disk covers, it fully absorbs it, by radiation laws it warms the surface of the planet, the heat escapes, possibly some residual is left in the atmosphere, and the energy that leaves is dumped into deep space. Your method of getting additional energy from the sun must be to go fetch it with a space ship. And you are completely wrong about your conclusion. The first solar powered home I ever saw used such a system. It was a home in Oregon off the electric grid. All heating, water and house was passive fetched from a stream, heated in plastic plastic piping used and dumped. No recirculation because of the lack of power to power the necessary pumps. This technology is at least a thousand years old. The only energy the home used (it also had passive refrigeration) was for lights and some of the cooking and they used kerosene for those items; and a gasoline chain saw for firewood and lawnmower and of course the family jeep as well. Like I said I have already lived through an era where folks go a little crazy over this stuff. But some of it makes real sense if you can sort the wheat from the chaff.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 10, 2013 4:42:39 GMT
Your method of getting additional energy from the sun must be to go fetch it with a space ship. You moron no additional energy is being got from the Sun The heat losses in the house are reduced to force the temperature inside to rise towards the temperature of the heat source This is school boy science If you put more clothes on your cold skin warms towards the temperature of the core of your body Have you shit for brains or what?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 10, 2013 4:50:57 GMT
And you are completely wrong about your conclusion. The first solar powered home I ever saw used such a system. It was a home in Oregon off the electric grid. All heating, water and house was passive fetched from a stream, heated in plastic plastic piping used and dumped. No recirculation because of the lack of power to power the necessary pumps. This technology is at least a thousand years old. Point taken but if the house is well insulated the circulation can be reduced and the suns heat will heat the water to be very very hot and humans will be cooked inside by the 40-50 degree very slowly circulating water In a very well insulated house a human would die from heat exhaustion even if there was no heating. Protein cannot survive if heated more than a few degrees beyond 37 degrees a person with a rising temperature of 43c is getting close to death
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 10, 2013 5:06:12 GMT
>>You apparently believe arm waving is science. You claim errors but cannot provide a single references that identifies one. Moron! Your stupid comments about the bricks in the sauna demonstrate you go to tremendous lengths to avoid learning the consequence of the stephan boltzmann constant Endlessly your statements are full of errors! The temperature of a light bulb is obviously changed by the temperature of the surrounding objects or the stephan boltzmann constant is wrong. And yet you are the moron who uses the constant to demand i show calculations about a simple fridge experiment! Worse you tell me because the fridge is mains powerered my results are invalidated? What the f**k have you got between your ears? It is not a case of arm waving. It is more a case of i am unable to continually punch you into unconsciousness because of the stupidity of the enunciations you keep making where you prove you are a f**king moron who keeps challenging school boy science while you have temerity to tell me i am providing no f**king references. Are you really so f**king stupid or is this just a big f**king game? No f**king references? ? no f**king references??? What on earth is motivating you to be so tedious?? I am just unable to believe you are really genuinely really so stupid. It cannot be possible that somebody is as persistantly stupid as you are. No matter what i say or do you always find some devious shit for brains method of avoiding reality where the awful truth you are a complete f**kwit is revealed to you. Evidently in your stupid world you are the expert and everybody else in the freeking universe has shit for brains Magellan and Sigurdur are the same. Interestingly you are all Americans. Magellan is probably right that given the state of the US educational system, it really is true that America is doomed. The united f**kwit states of America. One nation without a brain
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 10, 2013 7:36:34 GMT
>>You apparently believe arm waving is science. You claim errors but cannot provide a single references that identifies one. Moron! Your stupid comments about the bricks in the sauna demonstrate you go to tremendous lengths to avoid learning the consequence of the stephan boltzmann constant You are the one looking at conductive cooling gradients that existed before your experiment started, attributed them to Endlessly your statements are full of errors! It is not a case of arm waving. It is more a case of i am unable to continually punch you into unconsciousness because of the stupidity of the enunciations you keep making where you prove you are a f**king moron who keeps challenging school boy science Arm waving! Any teacher is going to have references. What are you the teacher that doesn't know how to read?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 10, 2013 8:08:53 GMT
the sun is 5500 degrees and will provide the warming CorrectLets see your formula, established in peer reviewed science, of how a 5500 degree sun, 93 million miles away, is going to warm the surface because the earth's surface cooling rate dropped a bit. If you can do that you might make a believer out of me. A well insulated object will always rise in temperature towards the temperature of the heat sourcethe warming capacity of the earth is determined by a rigid formula of the product of the Stefan Boltzmann constant, the sun surface temperature and the inverse-square law of electromagnetic propagation. The principle of warming to the temperature of a heated object is via contact with the object. At distance radiation is reduced by the the inverse-square law of electromagnetic propagation. So perhaps I am missing something here. How can an object get warmer than the radiation it captures in accordance with the Stefan Boltzmann constant?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 10, 2013 8:39:34 GMT
They have air cooled 'radiators' like a simple motor bike has. If the fins are covered in muck or the noisy fan stops operating on a VW in traffic the engine will not cool as well. This is school boy science for gods sake
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 10, 2013 8:49:26 GMT
the sun is 5500 degrees and will provide the warming CorrectLets see your formula, established in peer reviewed science, of how a 5500 degree sun, 93 million miles away, is going to warm the surface because the earth's surface cooling rate dropped a bit. If you can do that you might make a believer out of me. A well insulated object will always rise in temperature towards the temperature of the heat sourcethe warming capacity of the earth is determined by a rigid formula of the product of the Stefan Boltzmann constant, the sun surface temperature and the inverse-square law of electromagnetic propagation. The principle of warming to the temperature of a heated object is via contact with the object. At distance radiation is reduced by the the inverse-square law of electromagnetic propagation. So perhaps I am missing something here. How can an object get warmer than the radiation it captures in accordance with the Stefan Boltzmann constant? If you insulate an object sufficiently well there is no power in the universe that can stop the inside temperature of the insulation eventually reaching the temperature of the heat source. The insulation is heated by radiation. it only takes one photon per thousand years to raise the temperature of an object that is perfectly insulated. Prevost exchange principle applies here. You cannot create a higher temperature in the core of an object by having a vaccum gap and heating the outside with a constantly applied temperature. There is no magic pudding If one net photon per million years enters the earths atmosphere then the earth will keep rising in temperature until it reaches the temperature of the heat source. Once objects are the same temperature then they emit and absorb the same amount of radiation to each other The insulation begins cold and does not emit much radiation so it gets hotter, so that if you add more and more insulation the temperature inside the insulation gets closer and closer to the temperature of the heat source
|
|