|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 17:19:54 GMT
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. 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. If you want to continue to attempt to obfuscate the fact that you lied about having previously posted any such calculations by attempting to legitimize a claimed proper use of the 2 SB equations by offering quotes of great scientists you very much need to provide references such attributions as: "According to Stefan Boltzmann an object emitts a cooling force in all directions proportional to its temperature."And you also need to understand that "emits a cooling force" is unquantified and provides no support for your false claim. We would all like to take a look at where and how Stefan Boltzmann used the terminology "cooling force" since it does not seem to turn up in a Google search and we need to see support for any quantification should at some point you decide to actually document the quantification you have already lied about having provided. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 18:08:50 GMT
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. 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. If you want to continue to attempt to obfuscate the fact that you lied about having previously posted any such calculations by attempting to legitimize a claimed proper use of the 2 SB equations by offering quotes of great scientists you very much need to provide references such attributions as: "According to Stefan Boltzmann an object emitts a cooling force in all directions proportional to its temperature."And you also need to understand that "emits a cooling force" is unquantified and provides no support for your false claim. We would all like to take a look at where and how Stefan Boltzmann used the terminology "cooling force" since it does not seem to turn up in a Google search and we need to see support for any quantification should at some point you decide to actually document the quantification you have already lied about having provided. If a tungsten filament in a light bulb does not emit a cooling force it would eventually be millions of degrees centigrade. Instead it is able to be cooler by heating other objects. Your skin cools by heating the air. If you could not cool you would burst into flames. Whatever heating force your body produces your body is also able to provide an equal cooling force for a constantly regulated temperature. You make the simplest of things enormously complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2013 20:05:47 GMT
If a tungsten filament in a light bulb does not emit a cooling force it would eventually be millions of degrees centigrade. Instead it is able to be cooler by heating other objects. Your skin cools by heating the air. If you could not cool you would burst into flames. Whatever heating force your body produces your body is also able to provide an equal cooling force for a constantly regulated temperature. You make the simplest of things enormously complicated. [/quote] Stop! You lied and you won't admit it. If you didn't lie then you could produce the post that exonerates you. And out of generosity I offered the opportunity for you to produce the calculations supporting you molecular screen using the 2 SB equations. Instead you continue to obfuscate. I am not disputing that some things get hotter when you insulate them. But many things are very limited in how hot they can get. You say I would burst into flames if I could not cool. That may well be true but it would be by an entirely different process than how I am currently staying warm. The limit that system can warm is somewhere around 110 deg F and then it disfunctions. It has not been proven that you can endlessly warm an object via a radiation field. You have previously claimed that the limit would be 6,000 degrees the temperature of the surface of the sun. Now you seem to be claiming there is no limit as if all is required is for the sun to keep shining. Again you are proving your ignorance and how you endlessly shift goal posts. You really don't know how it works but you have a whole kit bag of tools that you can throw at the issue without a shred of physical evidence or any accounting whatsoever. In fact the issue is not and never has been that the warming has to be zero. The issue is how much warming can be produced by capturing additional energy in the atmosphere. You created a model that produces a mathematical result for that warming given a single molecule resistance. You have failed completely in defending it and have resorted to lies and obfuscation. The issue of how much warming can be produced has been the issue since day one. You come in here with absolutely nothing to add to that discussion, calling everybody else morons and muddled up when nobody on this forum is more muddled up than you are. I am not complicating anything! You claim this is high school physics. It may well be but all you have done is then prove you can't handle high school physics. As far as I am concerned I don't claim to be a physicist. All I claim is an ability to learn it when somebody properly describes it and provides evidence of its truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 25, 2013 21:32:07 GMT
If a tungsten filament in a light bulb does not emit a cooling force it would eventually be millions of degrees centigrade. Instead it is able to be cooler by heating other objects. Your skin cools by heating the air. If you could not cool you would burst into flames. Whatever heating force your body produces your body is also able to provide an equal cooling force for a constantly regulated temperature. You make the simplest of things enormously complicated. Stop! You lied and you won't admit it. If you didn't lie then you could produce the post that exonerates you. And out of generosity I offered the opportunity for you to produce the calculations supporting you molecular screen using the 2 SB equations. Instead you continue to obfuscate. I am not disputing that some things get hotter when you insulate them. But many things are very limited in how hot they can get. You say I would burst into flames if I could not cool. That may well be true but it would be by an entirely different process than how I am currently staying warm. The limit that system can warm is somewhere around 110 deg F and then it disfunctions. It has not been proven that you can endlessly warm an object via a radiation field. You have previously claimed that the limit would be 6,000 degrees the temperature of the surface of the sun. Now you seem to be claiming there is no limit as if all is required is for the sun to keep shining. Again you are proving your ignorance and how you endlessly shift goal posts. You really don't know how it works but you have a whole kit bag of tools that you can throw at the issue without a shred of physical evidence or any accounting whatsoever. In fact the issue is not and never has been that the warming has to be zero. The issue is how much warming can be produced by capturing additional energy in the atmosphere. You created a model that produces a mathematical result for that warming given a single molecule resistance. You have failed completely in defending it and have resorted to lies and obfuscation. The issue of how much warming can be produced has been the issue since day one. You come in here with absolutely nothing to add to that discussion, calling everybody else morons and muddled up when nobody on this forum is more muddled up than you are. I am not complicating anything! You claim this is high school physics. It may well be but all you have done is then prove you can't handle high school physics. As far as I am concerned I don't claim to be a physicist. All I claim is an ability to learn it when somebody properly describes it and provides evidence of its truth. No lies have been told by me, and no goal posts have been changed. The subject matter is trivial. >>out of generosity I offered the opportunity for you to produce the calculations supporting you molecular screen using the 2 SB equations. I have already calculated all of the temperatures and wattages of your device and added extra rings and shown you how I did it. >>You created a model that produces a mathematical result for that warming given a single molecule resistance. You created the model. I showed you how effective that layer insulated the core by doing all of the maths for you. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2013 2:03:00 GMT
No lies have been told by me, and no goal posts have been changed. The subject matter is trivial. >>out of generosity I offered the opportunity for you to produce the calculations supporting you molecular screen using the 2 SB equations. I have already calculated all of the temperatures and wattages of your device and added extra rings and shown you how I did it. >>You created a model that produces a mathematical result for that warming given a single molecule resistance. You created the model. I showed you how effective that layer insulated the core by doing all of the maths for you. I drew the model to your specifications Andrew. The math you showed me is how you divided what has been received in two and then radiated it equally in two different directions without regard to the second SB equation. Back a couple of months ago I pointed out that you had not applied the 2 SB equations to the loss of heat by the molecular screen, noting that if you had the heat loss back to the surface would be zero or negative. That of course would mean the heat was still in the molecular screen and the screen having no insulating value it would have a full complement of heat to radiate to space. You basically got frustrated and abandoned the discussion. Now you come back and claim you had estimated the cooling forces of the molecular screen by using the 2 SB equations. Clearly a lie because what you did was divide the incoming from the surface by two as opposed to taking the incoming and allocating it using the 2 SB equations as you did for the surface. So now you come and tell me you explained the maths. Yes indeed if what you are explaining is you simply divided it in two. But thats inconsistent with your claim you just made a few posts ago that you used the 2 SB equations. So you lied! There is no question about it! And you can't make your model work with a consistent application of the 2 SB equations for all surfaces in the system until the energy is lost to space. I have known that for quite some time but you seem to remain ignorant of it. So of course it is true there are other means for radiative trapping to warm the surface. 1) It can slow cooling of the surface because the emissivity of the surface is higher than the atmosphere. Therefore the gases in the atmosphere cool slower and by doing will slow the surface cooling. 2) It can contain heat in the atmosphere that might result in the slowing of convection and causing warmer air to return to the surface when it does convect. But these effects are difficult to calculate and its difficult to say how much they might be reduced by the upper atmosphere cooling because of having radiating gases in the atmosphere. Also you have to consider that radiative trapping of heat by greenhouse gases is not the only way that heat gets into the atmosphere and when its taken there by hot summer days via convection and conduction it loses less because the damned gases don't radiate. Hardly a satisfactory solution when the political system needs for you to tell everybody how much warming to expect. So I win! And I am not going to say thats all that important. George Berkeley beat the pants off of John Locke in a similar argument, and like me, Berkeley proposed alternatives that were subject to the same criticisms that Berkeley leveled on to Locke. But what it means is the skeptics from Richard Lindzen to Judith Curry to Syun Akasofu to Roy Spencer and so many others; they are the ones who are correct. . . .the science is not settled. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 26, 2013 4:03:52 GMT
No lies have been told by me, and no goal posts have been changed. The subject matter is trivial. >>out of generosity I offered the opportunity for you to produce the calculations supporting you molecular screen using the 2 SB equations. I have already calculated all of the temperatures and wattages of your device and added extra rings and shown you how I did it. >>You created a model that produces a mathematical result for that warming given a single molecule resistance. You created the model. I showed you how effective that layer insulated the core by doing all of the maths for you. I drew the model to your specifications Andrew. The math you showed me is how you divided what has been received in two and then radiated it equally in two different directions without regard to the second SB equation. After it was eventually clear what your model consisted of, I used a calculator that produced a net radiant power requiring the temperatures of two surfaces, of if zero was plugged in for one surface it would produce the radiant power of a single surface (where the radiant power of a zero K surface is zero). You had no objections to what I finally produced. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2013 4:49:10 GMT
I drew the model to your specifications Andrew. The math you showed me is how you divided what has been received in two and then radiated it equally in two different directions without regard to the second SB equation. After it was eventually clear what your model consisted of, I used a calculator that produced a net radiant power requiring the temperatures of two surfaces. Ie to get the net result the radiant power of each surface has to be calculated separately. >>You basically got frustrated and abandoned the discussion Nobody else would have continued as long as I have. Now your model is my model! Never was there a more clear statement of homage its like getting on your knee bowing your head and handing me your sword handle first!! I accept it graciously and return it to you to show you respect! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 26, 2013 4:50:35 GMT
After it was eventually clear what your model consisted of, I used a calculator that produced a net radiant power requiring the temperatures of two surfaces. Ie to get the net result the radiant power of each surface has to be calculated separately. >>You basically got frustrated and abandoned the discussion Nobody else would have continued as long as I have. Now your model is my model! Never was there a more clear statement of homage its like getting on your knee bowing your head and handing me your sword handle first!! I accept it graciously and return it to you to show you respect! How can I respect you for claiming i produced a model that you produced? Why on Earth do you keep producing posts talking about Iceskaters or Andrews molecular screen model?? All i did was calculate the temperatures using Stefan Boltzmann |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2013 5:38:24 GMT
Awwwww. . . .the satisfaction is sweet when finally your student catches on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 26, 2013 5:56:27 GMT
Awwwww. . . .the satisfaction is sweet when finally your student catches on. You produced a model to falsify the greenhouse effect I did the calculations to show the greenhouse effect was enormously strong You dishonestly told everybody it was my model You dishonestly told everybody I was a liar |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2013 7:03:02 GMT
Awwwww. . . .the satisfaction is sweet when finally your student catches on. You produced a model to falsify the greenhouse effect I did the calculations to show the greenhouse effect was enormously strong You dishonestly told everybody it was my model You dishonestly told everybody I was a liar You must really be insecure. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 26, 2013 9:22:18 GMT
You must really be insecure. Not particularly. The nature of being scientific is to be interested in asking why and being persistent until answers are forthcoming. You produced a model to falsify the greenhouse effect I did the calculations to show the greenhouse effect was enormously strong for that particular model. You dishonestly told everybody it was my model You dishonestly told everybody I was a liar Why? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 27, 2013 11:05:39 GMT
You must really be insecure. Not particularly. The nature of being scientific is to be interested in asking why and being persistent until answers are forthcoming. You produced a model to falsify the greenhouse effect I did the calculations to show the greenhouse effect was enormously strong for that particular model. You dishonestly told everybody it was my model You dishonestly told everybody I was a liar Why? I specified a simplified atmosphere for the purpose of clarity alone Andrew, you modeled the physics for it. Your claim I modeled it is yet another blatant lie on your part. You have now posted 11 consecutive obfuscating posts to avoid documenting your "school boy physics". If it is school boy physics you would simply document it just like a school boy is able to do it and prove I was lying about you lying. Instead like everything else Andrew your approach is anti-science and propped up with lies. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 27, 2013 18:38:15 GMT
Not particularly. The nature of being scientific is to be interested in asking why and being persistent until answers are forthcoming. You produced a model to falsify the greenhouse effect I did the calculations to show the greenhouse effect was enormously strong for that particular model. You dishonestly told everybody it was my model You dishonestly told everybody I was a liar Why? I specified a simplified atmosphere for the purpose of clarity alone Andrew, you modeled the physics for it. Your claim I modeled it is yet another blatant lie on your part. You have now posted 11 consecutive obfuscating posts to avoid documenting your "school boy physics". If it is school boy physics you would simply document it just like a school boy is able to do it and prove I was lying about you lying. Instead like everything else Andrew your approach is anti-science and propped up with lies. The rational thing to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong, or prove the hyperphysics calculator has an error in it or alternatively apologise for your obnoxious behaviour and tell me you honestly cannot remember that i have already produced detailed calculations and ask me if I might possibly kindly tell you where they are on the board. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 27, 2013 19:04:58 GMT
You have now posted 11 consecutive obfuscating posts to avoid documenting your "school boy physics". If it is school boy physics you would simply document it just like a school boy is able to do it and prove I was lying about you lying. Instead like everything else Andrew your approach is anti-science and propped up with lies. Even if you repeat a million times i am a liar reality is not going to change. The reality is being more apparent by the minute that you can't handle the "school boy physics" that you claim your thoughts on this matter are based. That means you probably absorbed it from a Trenberth cartoon or other such nonsense. |
|
