|
Post by Andrew on Oct 24, 2013 19:11:27 GMT
There are no lies told by me. It most certainly is a lie! You used the two stefan boltzmann equations up to the point they conflicted with your world view. You had the surface radiating 400 watts to space after receiving 400 watts from the core. That was correct as there could be no cooling downwards and that can be determined by the two stefan boltzmann equations. That radiation was intercepted by a molecular screen and you now trashed the two stefan boltzmann equations to determine how the molecular screen would cool. If you had actually used the two stefan boltzmann equations that are used to produce the Engineering Toolbox Net radiation loss curve to calculate the disposition of that 400 watts by the molecules in the screen instead of lying that you did. . . .you would find the only place they could cool to would be space, and that the cooling would be 400 watts with an identical calculation of how you calculated the surface radiation of the core. Instead you threw the Engineering Toolbox Net radiation loss curve into the trash can at this point and invoked instead a photon cartoon model from your grammar school days as a model to determine how the molecules in the molecular screen would cool. So stop lying and own up to what you did! p.s. This is the point you ran away from your molecular screen model in that thread. You really need to go back there and show your calculations on that model for all the world to see. It would be the proper topic to have this discussion in. But you won't because its easier to deceive people by using your driveby scumbag approach and lie about what you are doing and what other people are doing. When you put your calculations of these curves on paper for all folks to carefully inspect your lie will be exposed. So I am sure you won't do it. You would rather play it like a scumbag shyster claiming one thing and doing another. You are still stuck and struggling with the idea of cooling versus cooling force. I explained all of this before in exhaustive detail. >>You had the surface radiating 400 watts to space after receiving 400 watts from the core. That was correct as there could be no cooling downwards and that can be determined by the two stefan boltzmann equations. That radiation was intercepted by a molecular screen and you now trashed the two stefan boltzmann equations to determine how the molecular screen would cool. A layer will always emit in all directions so a cooling force is going to be produced in all directions. There is therefore a cooling force being produced back towards the earth in a downwards direction and whatever direction the radiation travels in it will arrive at another layer so there where always be two emissions to consider for a net effect. >>If you had actually used the two stefan boltzmann equations that are used to produce the Engineering Toolbox Net radiation loss curve to calculate the disposition of that 400 watts by the molecules in the screen instead of lying that you did. . . .you would find the only place they could cool to would be space. We have been through all of this stuff before. I am always using two calculations for each surface in each direction!!! Totally contrary to what you are claiming i am doing!!! A layer produces a cooling force in all directions and that is just the nature of the layer. It cannot only produce a cooling force in only one direction. There are two emissions to consider for a net effect!!! These conversations always end up the same way. I describe how it happens according to the mainstream scientific viewpoint based on established ideas of the last 160 years and i get told in return that it cannot happen that way for x reason or y reason or z reason where each and every one of these reasons makes no sense whatsoever to me or to anybody else with any scientific knowledge. It is impossible for the top layer of the atmosphere to produce a cooling force in only one direction!!!!
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 24, 2013 22:44:08 GMT
Andrew, I'm not sure how you got embroiled in this discussion, but what is your point relative to the global warming topic? Is the earth going to warm up a lot over the next few decades? More than the IPCC says? Or is it going to warm up more slowly?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 0:35:16 GMT
You are still stuck and struggling with the idea of cooling versus cooling force. I explained all of this before in exhaustive detail. You also lied that you calculated it with the 2 Stefan Boltzmann equations!
It is impossible for the top layer of the atmosphere to produce a cooling force in only one direction!!!! You also failed to produce an alternative method of calculating this so-called "cooling force" supported by empirical science. You also lied that you had calculated it with the 2 Stefan Boltzmann equations.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 1:54:39 GMT
Andrew, I'm not sure how you got embroiled in this discussion, but what is your point relative to the global warming topic? Is the earth going to warm up a lot over the next few decades? More than the IPCC says? Or is it going to warm up more slowly? Sometimes its a bit hard to pin Andrew down. But he jumped in here almost 2 years ago in defense of Steve's argument in support of the IPCC recommendations of up to 6 degrees warming. Steve had argued that the direct effect would be 1.2 degrees via a model very similar to the molecular screen model described here by Andrew. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/81041/threadThe current discussion is on the basis of how he calculated the radiation amounts from the screen. He is trying to find scientific support so he lied that he used the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Heat Loss curve built on 2 Stefan Boltzmann equations that is referenced here: www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.htmlIts of course a lie because he did not do that. Andrew knows all he has to do is label the various forcings and provide a calculation for each one. He is allowed to use as a given the diagonal forcing coming if from the sun as being 400watts for the purpose of simplification. Now months later he continues to claim he calculated this stuff using the 2 stefan boltzmann equations used to create the Engineering Toolbox Net radiation heat loss curve so he claims to know how to do these calculations. He has invented a term here he calls "cooling force" I have no idea where he got it from, perhaps he made it up. But it appears he is defining a "cooling force" as a force that does not cool. To which I would conclude if the downward cooling force does not cool the molecular screen still has 400 watts to dump and it will dump that to space. So you see the problem is he claims his model is built from science, he has no paper or experiment to point to validate it, he refuses to blueprint it by showing the theoretical calculations he is using, he claims to be using some well known calculations but he will not demonstrate them. He obviously has a mental idea of how it works. I can only guess if my idea of how it might work is the same as his because he refuses to document his calculations. Thats where it stands. I press him and he screams I am a moron who refuses to learn anything. I can only assume he has no idea of what he is spouting on about. He has cobbled together a bunch of ideas well known to science, I can agree on that, but he falls on his face when he tries to either show it has been demonstrated before or when he tries to assemble it into a mathematical model. Now I can agree with the idea that if additional heat is absorbed by the atmosphere it is plausible some of it will find its way back to the surface. Andrew claims he knows how much and how to calculate it but he refuses to show anybody his figures. Showing your calculations is what is demanded of 3rd graders and up. This is key to the effect. The entire CO2 warming scare is built on this backradiation model. His model is not plausible to me because it mandates a form of equilibrium temperature for the molecular screen well below a true equilibrium with the surface. He maintains that screen as cool by sending half the radiation back to the surface as if the screen is cooling by half back to the surface. But his own favored equation model says thats bunk! So now he is making up a "cooling force" that does not cool and calling it well know by saying everybody knows everything emits in all directions. I have suggested that if thats the way it works the surface layer of the surface should operate like that too. That molecules should not undergo a magic change in emission capabilities simply because they are a gas or lifted themselves off the surface. So he seems to artificially be restricting heat flowing to space by cooling the molecular screen with 200 watts of backradiation that really doesn't cool the screen. (Andrew himself has gone on ad nauseum about the surface not cooling without using both equations!!!!) His model and unfortunately it seems the entire backradiation model is a house of cards. Its all smoke and mirrors. With smoke and mirrors its important to not draw detailed blueprints. Its like asking a magician to explain his trick. Suddenly magic turns into deception.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 5:46:47 GMT
>>The current discussion is on the basis of how he calculated the radiation amounts from the screen. He is trying to find scientific support so he lied that he used the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Heat Loss curve built on 2 Stefan Boltzmann equations that is referenced here:
>>www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Each of those wattages can be calculated either by hand or using the hyperphysics tool. The engineering toolbox curves can all be calculated exactly identically using the hyperphysics tool.
The heat loss from any given layer is always calculated using two Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.
>> he refuses to document his calculations.
I am using the stefan boltzmann equation. You agreed with the results which anybody can check for themselves using the hyperphysics tool
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 6:49:22 GMT
>>The current discussion is on the basis of how he calculated the radiation amounts from the screen. He is trying to find scientific support so he lied that he used the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Heat Loss curve built on 2 Stefan Boltzmann equations that is referenced here: >>www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html Each of those wattages can be calculated either by hand or using the hyperphysics tool. The engineering toolbox curves can all be calculated exactly identically using the hyperphysics tool. Why do I need to lie to explain something a school boy can understand? Show us your work!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 6:59:27 GMT
>>The current discussion is on the basis of how he calculated the radiation amounts from the screen. He is trying to find scientific support so he lied that he used the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Heat Loss curve built on 2 Stefan Boltzmann equations that is referenced here: >>www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html Each of those wattages can be calculated either by hand or using the hyperphysics tool. The engineering toolbox curves can all be calculated exactly identically using the hyperphysics tool. Why do I need to lie to explain something a school boy can understand? Show us your work! There is a thread here already with all of the work already shown on it. It shows all my working including my errors for a final result from the beginnings of your molecular screen idea to me adding additional layers Once i had produced that you later began talking about the Nobel winning prize implications of the novel heating method that was suggested by my calculations and began calling it incorrectly 'Iceskaters molecular screen model'. Later still you said i was refusing to do something for you. I still have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 8:00:19 GMT
There is a thread here already with all of the work already shown on it. It shows all my working including my errors for a final result from the beginnings of your molecular screen idea to me adding additional layers Once i had produced that you later began talking about the Nobel winning prize implications of the novel heating method that was suggested by my calculations and began calling it incorrectly 'Iceskaters molecular screen model'. Later still you said i was refusing to do something for you. I still have no idea what you are talking about. thats another lie! There is only diagrams with the amount of wattage being radiated but no calculations. You didn't show your work. You fail!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 10:19:42 GMT
There is a thread here already with all of the work already shown on it. It shows all my working including my errors for a final result from the beginnings of your molecular screen idea to me adding additional layers Once i had produced that you later began talking about the Nobel winning prize implications of the novel heating method that was suggested by my calculations and began calling it incorrectly 'Iceskaters molecular screen model'. Later still you said i was refusing to do something for you. I still have no idea what you are talking about. thats another lie! There is only diagrams with the amount of wattage being radiated but no calculations. You didn't show your work. You fail! Anybody can check my working using the hyperphysics calculator where in order to satisfy you earlier i had to show you how i was calculating the results because you told me you could not do it yourself. You were satisfied And now you are not. No lies have been told by me
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 25, 2013 12:29:19 GMT
I made my peace with Astromet when the level of conversation dropped to lobbing insults at one another. It may be time for you guys to just agree to disagree and move on.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 14:31:02 GMT
thats another lie! There is only diagrams with the amount of wattage being radiated but no calculations. You didn't show your work. You fail! Anybody can check my working using the hyperphysics calculator where in order to satisfy you earlier i had to show you how i was calculating the results because you told me you could not do it yourself. You were satisfied And now you are not. No lies have been told by me Oh so now you admit to lying. . . .somebody else can do the math to check your figures! You never did it! You lied that you did! You lied about not changing the goal posts and pleaded that the proof of it was in the posts of yours you deleted for the purpose of relieving yourself from distress. You lied about using the 2 SB calculations for calculating the "cooling force" of your molecular screen! You lied I was disputing the implementation of the SB equations. You then lied there was a post that showed where you did the calculations! Now you are admitting there is no such post that somebody else can do the math to check your work! But no body else can do the math because you didn't use the 2 SB equations to calculate the cooling in the first place! Which is proof you lied about that! The graph is there with your wattage but no math! You cannot come up with 200 watts in both directions as net radiation loss for a molecular screen that absorbed 400 watts. If you apply those tools you come up with 0 watts in one direction and 400 watts in the other direction as I have been suggesting might be the case since day one in this whole argument. Now after a year and half you have finally admitted that I am right, that you should use the 2 SB equations, but you are now lying to try to cover that fact up! Yes Andrew I am calling you out as a pathological liar! And all you have to do to prove me wrong is document the math or refer me to where you claim you have already provided the documentation!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 15:07:30 GMT
I made my peace with Astromet when the level of conversation dropped to lobbing insults at one another. It may be time for you guys to just agree to disagree and move on. Probably good advice except that there is no longer any disagreement. Its down to Andrew saying the radiation by the molecular screen surfaces should be calculated using the 2 SB equations that make up the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation curve which is what I have maintained all along. The only thing going on is Andrew wants pretend I am applying the equations incorrectly and he is applying them correctly. But he refuses to document his math. He refuses to document his math because he is just plain wrong. For all intents and purposes this argument is over. The molecular screen model has failed to meet the test even Andrew set for it. It cannot be constructed with the science suggested by Andrew. One can use the 2 SB equations to calculate the Net Radiation by the surface into a static temperature molecular screen with an arbitrarily set temperature that matches Andrews Molecular screen model. And you can balance the flow of radiation artificially by that arbitrary choice of temperature for the screen. But physics is not a matter of balancing the math its a matter of consistently apply the calculations to check if your arbitrary balancing of the math works in all directions. The molecular screen math does not work in all directions as drawn by Andrew using the 2 SB equations. So mathematically his model fails. It simply has an artificial microstate where it balances but it exists contrary to the math of radiation consistently applied and only exists compatible with the view of objects radiating equally in all directions. So Andrew continues to hold to the world view of radiation but is fundamentally rejecting the 2 SB equations as being a test of the cooling rate of the molecular screen. Now I agree that this does not disprove the radiation model. It does not prove that backradiation does not exist. All it proves is Andrew can't give a consistent description of it within the framework he claims he understands it. As an auditor of numbers I run into this problem a lot. People adopting world views without scientific support it doesn't mean they are wrong it just means their ideas are not based on true quantifiable science when they often think it is. Steve McIntyre has a post up this week "Nick Brown Smelled BS". Here it was a case of a beginning Master's degree student thinking the accepted science paper of a very well respected PhD was BS. The paper alleged to be based upon a mathematics and he obtained the help of a mathematician to take the paper apart and succeeded. Thats basically what just happened here. Andrew remains in denial of it but this is not complex math applying the SB equations and he is merely now defending his view point that it is based upon math by obscuring his calculations. Thats really the end of the story! Nothing more!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 16:25:05 GMT
Anybody can check my working using the hyperphysics calculator where in order to satisfy you earlier i had to show you how i was calculating the results because you told me you could not do it yourself. You were satisfied And now you are not. No lies have been told by me Oh so now you admit to lying. . . .somebody else can do the math to check your figures! You never did it! You lied that you did! You lied about not changing the goal posts and pleaded that the proof of it was in the posts of yours you deleted for the purpose of relieving yourself from distress. You lied about using the 2 SB calculations for calculating the "cooling force" of your molecular screen! You lied I was disputing the implementation of the SB equations. You then lied there was a post that showed where you did the calculations! Now you are admitting there is no such post that somebody else can do the math to check your work! But no body else can do the math because you didn't use the 2 SB equations to calculate the cooling in the first place! Which is proof you lied about that! The graph is there with your wattage but no math! You cannot come up with 200 watts in both directions as net radiation loss for a molecular screen that absorbed 400 watts. If you apply those tools you come up with 0 watts in one direction and 400 watts in the other direction as I have been suggesting might be the case since day one in this whole argument. Now after a year and half you have finally admitted that I am right, that you should use the 2 SB equations, but you are now lying to try to cover that fact up! Yes Andrew I am calling you out as a pathological liar! And all you have to do to prove me wrong is document the math or refer me to where you claim you have already provided the documentation! You are just muddled up. My working is available on this board where i have specified what values i am plugging into the hyperphysics calculator and what the results are for the entire construction of all of the layers. >>You cannot come up with 200 watts in both directions as net radiation loss for a molecular screen that absorbed 400 watts. 200W? Where do you get that from? if you begin heating an absolute zero core and metal layer only by heating the core at a rate of 400W then in the first instance the metal layer emits almost no energy at all. As the metal layer warms it emits more energy and so in turn the core has to emit more energy. Eventually the layer emits 400 Watts upwards and 400W downwards and receives 800W from below. If that is not the case then the science of the last 160 years or more is wrong and I can collect the Nobel prize money since you do not want it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 16:38:07 GMT
Oh so now you admit to lying. . . .somebody else can do the math to check your figures! You never did it! You lied that you did! You lied about not changing the goal posts and pleaded that the proof of it was in the posts of yours you deleted for the purpose of relieving yourself from distress. You lied about using the 2 SB calculations for calculating the "cooling force" of your molecular screen! You lied I was disputing the implementation of the SB equations. You then lied there was a post that showed where you did the calculations! Now you are admitting there is no such post that somebody else can do the math to check your work! But no body else can do the math because you didn't use the 2 SB equations to calculate the cooling in the first place! Which is proof you lied about that! The graph is there with your wattage but no math! You cannot come up with 200 watts in both directions as net radiation loss for a molecular screen that absorbed 400 watts. If you apply those tools you come up with 0 watts in one direction and 400 watts in the other direction as I have been suggesting might be the case since day one in this whole argument. Now after a year and half you have finally admitted that I am right, that you should use the 2 SB equations, but you are now lying to try to cover that fact up! Yes Andrew I am calling you out as a pathological liar! And all you have to do to prove me wrong is document the math or refer me to where you claim you have already provided the documentation! You are just muddled up. My working is available on this board where i have specified what values i am plugging into the hyperphysics calculator and what the results are for the entire construction of all of the layers. >>You cannot come up with 200 watts in both directions as net radiation loss for a molecular screen that absorbed 400 watts. 200W? Where do you get that from? if you begin heating an absolute zero core and metal layer only by heating the core at a rate of 400W then in the first instance the metal layer emits almost no energy at all. As the metal layer warms it emits more energy and so in turn the core has to emit more energy. Eventually the layer emits 400 Watts upwards and 400W downwards and receives 800W from below. If that is not the case then the science of the last 160 years or more is wrong and I can collect the Nobel prize money since you do not want it. There are no calculations in this post Andrew. You continue to obfuscate the fact that you lied about having ever made any such calculations from the netting of the 2 SB equations to determine your "cooling force". Nothing you can say can refute my charge of you being a liar except by providing and defending a set of calculations consistent with the two SB equations. Everything else is more lies to cover up the fact you lied. Additionally your claim that this is "school boy physics" demonstrates that my demand here is nothing unreasonable at all.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 16:55:25 GMT
You are just muddled up. My working is available on this board where i have specified what values i am plugging into the hyperphysics calculator and what the results are for the entire construction of all of the layers. >>You cannot come up with 200 watts in both directions as net radiation loss for a molecular screen that absorbed 400 watts. 200W? Where do you get that from? if you begin heating an absolute zero core and metal layer only by heating the core at a rate of 400W then in the first instance the metal layer emits almost no energy at all. As the metal layer warms it emits more energy and so in turn the core has to emit more energy. Eventually the layer emits 400 Watts upwards and 400W downwards and receives 800W from below. If that is not the case then the science of the last 160 years or more is wrong and I can collect the Nobel prize money since you do not want it. There are no calculations in this post Andrew. You continue to obfuscate the fact that you lied about having ever made any such calculations from the netting of the 2 SB equations to determine your "cooling force". Nothing you can say can refute my charge of you being a liar except by providing and defending a set of calculations consistent with the two SB equations. Everything else is more lies to cover up the fact you lied. Additionally your claim that this is "school boy physics" demonstrates that my demand here is nothing unreasonable at all. Obfuscation is a deliberate act of deception for some purpose. No lies have been told. According to Stefan Boltzmann an object emitts a cooling force in all directions proportional to its temperature. If there was no such cooling force the object would continue to get hotter for ever. Obviously that does not happen. Eventually the heating force is balanced by an equal amount of cooling force and the temperature remains constant. In our universe no object is in isolation to any other object and so we must always consider the influence of other objects and always use more than one Stefan Boltzmann calculation. I suppose the topic is at the level of undergraduate physics but after over 19 months a ten year old interested in science would be able to understand this and easily be able to explain it to another person.
|
|