|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2016 15:14:43 GMT
Radiation from a cooler object slows the rate of cooling of a warmer object. The cooler object cools by expressing radiation. The warmer object does not gain heat. Now all you have to do is try explaining that to Icefisher. its all smoke and mirrors Andrew. You are talking about two separate objects a warmer one and a cooler one. All that we measure and consider as climate is the cooler one. so while nothing can be happening to the entire object, earth and its relationship to outerspace unless things change in the sun, how does this cooler object warm without warming both the surface and the atmosphere, violating all the radiation laws? You are stuck Andrew with the artificial divisions you have created and the fact we only measure and consider as climate the one that has to be getting cooler from all this in your world of heat redistribution and no warming of the entire object in accordance with radiation laws. Straighten all that out for me and demonstrate the greenhouse effect in gases and you will have a believer in me and you will have science on your side. You instead have chosen to selectively compute how you think it works in your mind using substances with different behaviors and have failed even then to show a substantial effect not attributable to anything more than a redistribution of existing heat inside of solid objects. Brains compute Andrew and it seems all to often the computing brain has a lot of difficulty staying real. Thats why the scientific method was invented to sort out such nonsense. So show me! Now I have acknowledged the possibility of some change in temperature mean via the introduction of greenhouse gases and it is only at nighttime when we see a aharpening of the lapse rate. Here in this measurement is the only place where you can allege any increase in surface heat of the cooler object as the temperature gradient sharpens. But it may be due to a different cause perhaps a drying of the atmosphere which would change the lapse rate moving from a moist lapse rate towards a dry lapse rate. Fact is the physical surface cools faster than the atmosphere, nighttime is when you see inversions form due to this effect that are quickly filled when the sun comes up sucking away any induced distribution, meaning average temperature over all has not changed but at nighttime you might see a low atmospheric warming from additional CO2 that affects the climate mean. So Andrew what I am saying is any warming is temporary, warming the colder, cooling the warmer. Its a lot of smoke and mirrors that probably doesn't result in a hill of beans. That of course is a bad analogy because more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to create a lot of extra hills of beans for people to eat. One could even argue that burning fossil fuels is the largest recycling program of them all.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2016 15:36:35 GMT
Now all you have to do is try explaining that to Icefisher. its all smoke and mirrors Andrew. You are talking about two separate objects a warmer one and a cooler one. All that we measure and consider as climate is the cooler one. so while nothing can be happening to the entire object, earth and its relationship to outerspace unless things change in the sun, how does this cooler object warm without warming both the surface and the atmosphere, violating all the radiation laws? You are stuck Andrew with the artificial divisions you have created and the fact we only measure and consider as climate the one that has to be getting cooler from all this in your world of heat redistribution and no warming of the entire object in accordance with radiation laws. Straighten all that out for me and demonstrate the greenhouse effect in gases and you will have a believer in me and you will have science on your side. You instead have chosen to selectively compute how you think it works in your mind using substances with different behaviors and have failed even then to show a substantial effect not attributable to anything more than a redistribution of existing heat inside of solid objects. Brains compute Andrew and it seems all to often the computing brain has a lot of difficulty staying real. Thats why the scientific method was invented to sort out such nonsense. So show me! I have created no artificial divisions. I changed no goal posts.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2016 18:27:42 GMT
its all smoke and mirrors Andrew. You are talking about two separate objects a warmer one and a cooler one. All that we measure and consider as climate is the cooler one. so while nothing can be happening to the entire object, earth and its relationship to outerspace unless things change in the sun, how does this cooler object warm without warming both the surface and the atmosphere, violating all the radiation laws? You are stuck Andrew with the artificial divisions you have created and the fact we only measure and consider as climate the one that has to be getting cooler from all this in your world of heat redistribution and no warming of the entire object in accordance with radiation laws. Straighten all that out for me and demonstrate the greenhouse effect in gases and you will have a believer in me and you will have science on your side. You instead have chosen to selectively compute how you think it works in your mind using substances with different behaviors and have failed even then to show a substantial effect not attributable to anything more than a redistribution of existing heat inside of solid objects. Brains compute Andrew and it seems all to often the computing brain has a lot of difficulty staying real. Thats why the scientific method was invented to sort out such nonsense. So show me! I have created no artificial divisions. I changed no goal posts. Well trying to prove that God does not exist is also impossible Andrew. Demonstrate, or show where somebody has demonstrated a heat gradient they created in a gas using the principles you espouse. Thats how it works. Until you do that you are just a big pot of blather.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2016 18:44:39 GMT
I have created no artificial divisions. I changed no goal posts. Well trying to prove that God does not exist is also impossible Andrew. Demonstrate, or show where somebody has demonstrated a heat gradient they created in a gas using the principles you espouse. Thats how it works. Until you do that you are just a big pot of blather. The principle demonstrated has nothing at all to do with the internal structure of the brick or the temperature gradient inside it. The core of the brick is just a heat source to heat the surface Man you must be the dumbest auditor on Earth. No matter how simple an idea is, time and time again it is totally beyond you. Even the physics of a cooling egg was totally beyond you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2016 20:22:17 GMT
Well trying to prove that God does not exist is also impossible Andrew. Demonstrate, or show where somebody has demonstrated a heat gradient they created in a gas using the principles you espouse. Thats how it works. Until you do that you are just a big pot of blather. The principle demonstrated has nothing at all to do with the internal structure of the brick or the temperature gradient inside it. The core of the brick is just a heat source to heat the surface Man you must be the dumbest auditor on Earth. No matter how simple an idea is, time and time again it is totally beyond you. Even the physics of a cooling egg was totally beyond you. So what is all this? An excuse for being so freaking incompetent that you cannot demonstrate a simple physical principle in a gas? Unfortunately you are too dumb to know what a dumb auditor is. A dumb auditor is one who actually believes everything he is told by his auditee and doesn't demand evidence that the facts being conveyed by the auditee are true. I can guarantee that what a lying auditee does is suggest the auditor is dumb in hopes he will give up. An honest auditee will continue to insist that he is darned sure and then he will help you gather the physical evidence to support it. Thats the best kind of auditee one who makes the auditor's job far easier. The lying auditee does all he can to try to suggest its not necessary to find any evidence. And then he will obstruct you from finding evidence. Of course while never having experienced an auditee resisting producing evidence who did not turn out to be a liar. . . .it is within the realm of possibility that the auditee simply is not aware of any evidence. But I have not found one yet that wasn't willing to do what was necessary to go find it. I would pony up and build a machine to demonstrate it if I believed in it. Such a machine would receive praise far and wide and fame would follow. Unfortunately Woods could not do that. He only has fame that most people try to shovel dirt on to. Thats the legacy of failed experiments. When they fail they are the fault of the builder, they succeed and are replicable and its because of the discovery and/or proof of a new scientific principle. And the a-hole who claims something else and won't pony up but is not out and out lying is simply somebody lacking confidence in its truth. Fact is Andrew if you try you will be just another casualty in a long line of people who have attempted to prove it and failed. In building construction the lowest value for insulation is a pane of glass rated at R-1. It is the least insulative of all building products they build durable homes out of. And if you install rocksalt windows transparent to IR the value does not change in any significant way. If you put visqueen in your window panes though your building is going to be cooler because heat conducts through visqueen like a hot knife through butter. An engineering site says this about heat tranfer: The most efficient method of heat transfer is conduction. This mode of heat transfer occurs when there is a temperature gradient across a body. In this case, the energy is transferred from a high temperature region to low temperature region due to random molecular motion (diffusion). Conduction occurs similarly in liquids and gases. Regions with greater molecular kinetic energy will pass their thermal energy to regions with less molecular energy through direct molecular collisions. In metals, a significant portion of the transported thermal energy is also carried by conduction-band electrons. Different materials have varying abilities to conduct heat. Materials that conduct heat poorly (wood, styrofoam) are often called insulators. However, materials that conduct heat well (metals, glass, some plastics) have no special name. The simplest conduction heat transfer can be described as “one-dimensional heat flow” as shown in the following figure. The rate of heat flow from one side of an object to the other, or between objects that touch, depends on the cross-sectional area of flow, the conductivity of the material and the temperature difference between the two surfaces or objects.
and
The least efficient method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiant heat is simply heat energy in transit as electromagnetic radiation. All materials radiate thermal energy in amounts determined by their temperature, where the energy is carried by photons of light in the infrared and visible portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. In this case, heat moves through space as an electromagnetic radiation without the assistance of a physical substance. All objects that contain heat emit some level of radiant energy. The amount of radiation is inversely proportional to its wavelength (the shorter the wavelength the greater the energy content) which is, in turn, inversely proportional to its temperature (in °K).
Yet here you made this totally stupid statement: Conduction is a very slow event in a solid compared to the relatively instant speed of light transmission of radiation. Your responses are getting particularly silly. One always hears that nonsense when talking to warmist sycophants like yourself. Its just plain wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2016 20:45:21 GMT
The principle demonstrated has nothing at all to do with the internal structure of the brick or the temperature gradient inside it. The core of the brick is just a heat source to heat the surface Man you must be the dumbest auditor on Earth. No matter how simple an idea is, time and time again it is totally beyond you. Even the physics of a cooling egg was totally beyond you. So what is all this? An excuse for being so freaking incompetent that you cannot demonstrate a simple physical principle in a gas? Unfortunately you are too dumb to know what a dumb auditor is. A dumb auditor is one who actually believes everything he is told by his auditee and doesn't demand evidence that the facts being conveyed by the auditee are true. I can guarantee that what a lying auditee does is suggest the auditor is dumb in hopes he will give up. An honest auditee will continue to insist that he is darned sure and then he will help you gather the physical evidence to support it. Thats the best kind of auditee one who makes the auditor's job far easier. The lying auditee does all he can to try to suggest its not necessary to find any evidence. And then he will obstruct you from finding evidence. Of course while never having experienced an auditee resisting producing evidence who did not turn out to be a liar. . . .it is within the realm of possibility that the auditee simply is not aware of any evidence. But I have not found one yet that wasn't willing to do what was necessary to go find it. I would pony up and build a machine to demonstrate it if I believed in it. Such a machine would receive praise far and wide and fame would follow. Unfortunately Woods could not do that. He only has fame that most people try to shovel dirt on to. Thats the legacy of failed experiments. When they fail they are the fault of the builder, they succeed and are replicable and its because of the discovery and/or proof of a new scientific principle. And the a-hole who claims something else and won't pony up but is not out and out lying is simply somebody lacking confidence in its truth. Fact is Andrew if you try you will be just another casualty in a long line of people who have attempted to prove it and failed. In building construction the lowest value for insulation is a pane of glass rated at R-1. It is the least insulative of all building products they build durable homes out of. And if you install rocksalt windows transparent to IR the value does not change in any significant way. If you put visqueen in your window panes though your building is going to be cooler because heat conducts through visqueen like a hot knife through butter. An engineering site says this about heat tranfer: The most efficient method of heat transfer is conduction. This mode of heat transfer occurs when there is a temperature gradient across a body. In this case, the energy is transferred from a high temperature region to low temperature region due to random molecular motion (diffusion). Conduction occurs similarly in liquids and gases. Regions with greater molecular kinetic energy will pass their thermal energy to regions with less molecular energy through direct molecular collisions. In metals, a significant portion of the transported thermal energy is also carried by conduction-band electrons. Different materials have varying abilities to conduct heat. Materials that conduct heat poorly (wood, styrofoam) are often called insulators. However, materials that conduct heat well (metals, glass, some plastics) have no special name. The simplest conduction heat transfer can be described as “one-dimensional heat flow” as shown in the following figure. The rate of heat flow from one side of an object to the other, or between objects that touch, depends on the cross-sectional area of flow, the conductivity of the material and the temperature difference between the two surfaces or objects.
and
The least efficient method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiant heat is simply heat energy in transit as electromagnetic radiation. All materials radiate thermal energy in amounts determined by their temperature, where the energy is carried by photons of light in the infrared and visible portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. In this case, heat moves through space as an electromagnetic radiation without the assistance of a physical substance. All objects that contain heat emit some level of radiant energy. The amount of radiation is inversely proportional to its wavelength (the shorter the wavelength the greater the energy content) which is, in turn, inversely proportional to its temperature (in °K).
Yet here you made this totally stupid statement: Conduction is a very slow event in a solid compared to the relatively instant speed of light transmission of radiation. Your responses are getting particularly silly. One always hears that nonsense when talking to warmist sycophants like yourself. Its just plain wrong. Sigh You fail the audit yet again. Your first pieces of text are talking about efficiency of transfer. So radiation is not a particularly good way to transport heat compared to conduction - but this only applies if conduction is available because it might not be. Air is for example a poor conductor of heat and is known for being a good insulator. My text is talking about the speed of transfer. It should be obvious that the speed of light is a far quicker way to transport heat than the very slow method of conduction. So if you want to heat a boiler up with a flame you should have the hot gas in contact with the boiler and should not arrange it so that heating happens via radiation from a distance where most of the energy will go up the flue and be wasted. In the case of the earth all of the heat can only leave by radiation so radiation becomes particularly relevant and conduction not much at all. >>So what is all this? An excuse for being so freaking incompetent that you cannot demonstrate a simple physical principle in a gas? First things first. If you are too stupid to understand simple principles that are easily demonstrated there is no point in building more complicated examples and being subjected to an entirely new level of icefisherian stupidity. First we have to establish that 1 + 1 = 2 and then perhaps we can look at something more complicated. You are very highly resistive to being educated. Even the very simplest of principles are totally beyond you - even after 4 years of my best efforts you have apparently learnt nothing from me. And neither do you want to because evidently you think you are a superior being of one kind or another who knows better than all the scientists who have ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2016 21:04:01 GMT
Sigh You fail the audit yet again. Funny! You obviously know nothing at all about what auditing is all about. Its entirely about gathering evidence of the truth of assertions. You are not short on assertions but you are completely devoid of evidence. Your first pieces of text are talking about efficiency of transfer. So radiation is not a particularly good way to transport heat compared to conduction - but this only applies if conduction is available because it might not be. My text is talking about the speed of transfer. It should be obvious that the speed of light is a far quicker way to transport heat than the very slow method of conduction. Oh I see Andrew, now distance matters? LOL! You are incorrigible. In the case of the earth all of the heat can only leave by radiation so radiation becomes particularly relevant and conduction not much at all. There is no change in the amount of radiation leaving the planet and there should not be without a change in the intensity of the sun. You want to make the point that less radiation is leaving so your theory is true. You are too idiotic to realize you are begging the question. First things first. If you are too stupid to understand simple principles that are easily demonstrated there is no point in building more complicated examples and being subjected to an entirely new level of icefisherian stupidity. First we have to establish that 1 + 1 = 2 and then perhaps we can look at something more complicated. You are very highly resistive to being educated. Even the very simplest of principles are totally beyond you - even after 4 years of my best efforts you have apparently learnt nothing from me. And neither do you want to because evidently you think you are a superior being of one kind or another who knows better than all the scientists who have ever lived. Oh I thoroughly understand your assertions Andrew. I am just seeking evidence, any evidence they are true.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2016 21:12:01 GMT
Sigh You fail the audit yet again. Funny! You obviously know nothing at all about what auditing is all about. Its entirely about gathering evidence of the truth of assertions. You are not short on assertions but you are completely devoid of evidence. Your first pieces of text are talking about efficiency of transfer. So radiation is not a particularly good way to transport heat compared to conduction - but this only applies if conduction is available because it might not be. My text is talking about the speed of transfer. It should be obvious that the speed of light is a far quicker way to transport heat than the very slow method of conduction. Oh I see Andrew, now distance matters? LOL! You are incorrigible. In the case of the earth all of the heat can only leave by radiation so radiation becomes particularly relevant and conduction not much at all. There is no change in the amount of radiation leaving the planet and there should not be without a change in the intensity of the sun. You want to make the point that less radiation is leaving so your theory is true. You are too idiotic to realize you are begging the question. First things first. If you are too stupid to understand simple principles that are easily demonstrated there is no point in building more complicated examples and being subjected to an entirely new level of icefisherian stupidity. First we have to establish that 1 + 1 = 2 and then perhaps we can look at something more complicated. You are very highly resistive to being educated. Even the very simplest of principles are totally beyond you - even after 4 years of my best efforts you have apparently learnt nothing from me. And neither do you want to because evidently you think you are a superior being of one kind or another who knows better than all the scientists who have ever lived. Oh I thoroughly understand your assertions Andrew. I am just seeking evidence, any evidence they are true. The sticking point is your assertions. For some reason spencers ice box thought experiment although entirely supported by the engineers curves causes your head to explode and you produce a series of objections that no person on earth can understand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 22, 2016 0:36:23 GMT
Do you even know what an assertion is? Guess I can give you a quiz. What assertion are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 22, 2016 5:20:13 GMT
Do you even know what an assertion is? Guess I can give you a quiz. What assertion are you talking about? So now you are saying you cannot read a piece of text that I have repeatedly produced, written by you, so I can understand why you are making those claims? How hard can it be for you to explain to me on what basis you are making these assertions? For some reason spencers ice box thought experiment although entirely supported by the engineers curves causes your head to explode and you produce a series of assertions that no person on earth can understand. You should be able to explain to another human being why you are making those assertions and what processes have happened in your mind for you to believe what you are saying is scientifically significant. I suppose I am not expecting you to produce calculations and experiments to support your ideas but you should be able to tell me on what scientific basis those ideas were created so that i can follow what you are talking about. On the face of it you are just pulling a fast one on me and just trying to hoodwink me into thinking your objections have something scientific to back them up. And meanwhile I have the impression you are either a fantasist, you are mentally ill, or you are just a sadist. Either way you should be able to explain the scientific basis for those assertions if you are wanting to have a scientific discussion about the merits of your ideas. The thought experiment is entirely supported by the engineers net radiation curvesWhy are you asserting that surface area and conduction and distance has anything to do with the results??? I have no idea what you are talking about so how can i understand how simple they can be? You should be able to explain the reasons why you have typed these objections So far we have seen your reasons for 1 were apparently based entirely on your ignorance of temperatures that can be created on Earth by direct solar heating alone.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 22, 2016 11:31:44 GMT
Do you even know what an assertion is? Guess I can give you a quiz. What assertion are you talking about? So now you are saying you cannot read a piece of text that I have repeatedly produced, written by you, so I can understand why you are making those claims? How hard can it be for you to explain to me on what basis you are making these assertions? For some reason spencers ice box thought experiment although entirely supported by the engineers curves causes your head to explode and you produce a series of assertions that no person on earth can understand. You should be able to explain to another human being why you are making those assertions and what processes have happened in your mind for you to believe what you are saying is scientifically significant. I suppose I am not expecting you to produce calculations and experiments to support your ideas but you should be able to tell me on what scientific basis those ideas were created so that i can follow what you are talking about. On the face of it you are just pulling a fast one on me and just trying to hoodwink me into thinking your objections have something scientific to back them up. And meanwhile I have the impression you are either a fantasist, you are mentally ill, or you are just a sadist. Either way you should be able to explain the scientific basis for those assertions if you are wanting to have a scientific discussion about the merits of your ideas. OK Andrew I will try to work with your language difficulties. None of the three items above are anything close to assertions. An assertion is a strong and confident statement that something is true. The word "potentially" absolutely rules any of these statements out to be asseertions. You should be looking at them as audit questions and explain why clearly and concisely why these would apply and meet the standard of evidence or proof within the context of the scientific method. If you need a little more help I will point out the precise issue in fewer words and that should help with your reading comprehension problem. 1) An embedded source of heat in an object is fundamentally different that a source of heat that first must pass through the cooler object alleged to be causing the warming, hit the surface of alleged heated object, conduct some of that heat into the core. Your example, skips over all those steps and assumes the heat arrived on site and had did already everything but took the last step of having its surface heated additionally. In other words you need to establish that in fact your "one way glass" operates as intended and that the placement of said one way gas changes anything in regards to applying the Engineers Curve. Obviously you have offered up no experiment or established principle to show that. 2)A brick is not a gas. I really don't need to say more. Apples and Oranges experiments always need to be suspect. 3) Gases dissipate heat much faster than conduction and conduction is a much stronger force than radiation. Key to a large greenhouse effect as opposed to an anemic one that I have already acknowledged, and pointed out by G&T was the need for a very small amount of CO2 to support a great deal of warming. Your experiment relied on a brick and conduction. . . .and your results were anemic to the tune of about a tenth of a degree. Switching to radiation and gases its hard to see if you could have achieved a measurable outcome. I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility of a weak effect at nighttime and thats not what I am uncertain of. The thought experiment is entirely supported by the engineers net radiation curvesWhy are you asserting that surface area and conduction and distance has anything to do with the results??? I have no idea what you are talking about so how can i understand how simple they can be? You should be able to explain the reasons why you have typed these objections So far we have seen your reasons for 1 were apparently based entirely on your ignorance of temperatures that can be created on Earth by direct solar heating alone. You keep saying this. I am not disputing the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Loss curves. You have to first establish that within the earth atmospheric system such losses are not already occurring and if any changes have occurred between the heated object and the cooler object. You want to insert a third object to get your desired reaction. You need to demonstrate the 3 items above to see if the insertion of a third item, CO2, will cause any changes to occur in the first place. So the bottom line is there were no assertions by me. The burden of proof is on you and all you are doing trying to flip the burden of proof. You may as well admit that you can't point to any established principle in science that supports the greenhouse effect and you also have not demonstrated it. All you are doing is mixing apples and oranges, extrapolating ideas, and basically doing what any man of average intelligence would avoid doing. Sort of end of story unless you demonstrate the effect or refer to relevant and established principles that don't make the same moronic assumptions you make.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 22, 2016 11:58:20 GMT
So now you are saying you cannot read a piece of text that I have repeatedly produced, written by you, so I can understand why you are making those claims? How hard can it be for you to explain to me on what basis you are making these assertions? For some reason spencers ice box thought experiment although entirely supported by the engineers curves causes your head to explode and you produce a series of assertions that no person on earth can understand. You should be able to explain to another human being why you are making those assertions and what processes have happened in your mind for you to believe what you are saying is scientifically significant. I suppose I am not expecting you to produce calculations and experiments to support your ideas but you should be able to tell me on what scientific basis those ideas were created so that i can follow what you are talking about. On the face of it you are just pulling a fast one on me and just trying to hoodwink me into thinking your objections have something scientific to back them up. And meanwhile I have the impression you are either a fantasist, you are mentally ill, or you are just a sadist. Either way you should be able to explain the scientific basis for those assertions if you are wanting to have a scientific discussion about the merits of your ideas. OK Andrew I will try to work with your language difficulties. None of the three items above are anything close to assertions. An assertion is a strong and confident statement that something is true. The word "potentially" absolutely rules any of these statements out to be asseertions. You should be looking at them as audit questions and explain why clearly and concisely why these would apply and meet the standard of evidence or proof within the context of the scientific method. If you need a little more help I will point out the precise issue in fewer words and that should help with your reading comprehension problem. 1) An embedded source of heat in an object is fundamentally different that a source of heat that first must pass through the cooler object alleged to be causing the warming, hit the surface of alleged heated object, conduct some of that heat into the core. Your example, skips over all those steps and assumes the heat arrived on site and had did already everything but took the last step of having its surface heated additionally. In other words you need to establish that in fact your "one way glass" operates as intended and that the placement of said one way gas changes anything in regards to applying the Engineers Curve. Obviously you have offered up no experiment or established principle to show that. 2)A brick is not a gas. I really don't need to say more. Apples and Oranges experiments always need to be suspect. 3) Gases dissipate heat much faster than conduction and conduction is a much stronger force than radiation. Key to a large greenhouse effect as opposed to an anemic one that I have already acknowledged, and pointed out by G&T was the need for a very small amount of CO2 to support a great deal of warming. Your experiment relied on a brick and conduction. . . .and your results were anemic to the tune of about a tenth of a degree. Switching to radiation and gases its hard to see if you could have achieved a measurable outcome. I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility of a weak effect at nighttime and thats not what I am uncertain of. The thought experiment is entirely supported by the engineers net radiation curvesWhy are you asserting that surface area and conduction and distance has anything to do with the results??? I have no idea what you are talking about so how can i understand how simple they can be? You should be able to explain the reasons why you have typed these objections So far we have seen your reasons for 1 were apparently based entirely on your ignorance of temperatures that can be created on Earth by direct solar heating alone. You keep saying this. I am not disputing the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Loss curves. You have to first establish that within the earth atmospheric system such losses are not already occurring and if any changes have occurred between the heated object and the cooler object. You want to insert a third object to get your desired reaction. You need to demonstrate the 3 items above to see if the insertion of a third item, CO2, will cause any changes to occur in the first place. So the bottom line is there were no assertions by me. The burden of proof is on you and all you are doing trying to flip the burden of proof. You may as well admit that you can't point to any established principle in science that supports the greenhouse effect and you also have not demonstrated it. All you are doing is mixing apples and oranges, extrapolating ideas, and basically doing what any man of average intelligence would avoid doing. Sort of end of story unless you demonstrate the effect or refer to relevant and established principles that don't make the same moronic assumptions you make. You fail the audit again. You need to be able to write down your objections or assertions about reality in such a manner that I can understand them. Why in gods name are you rejecting spencers thought experiment by asserting the bars cause insulation and asserting there will be problems if the surface area of the bars is the same so no heating will be created by the constructed experiment? It is a radiation experiment in a vacuum. It is trivially true or the laws of physics are wrong. The thought experiment is entirely supported by the engineers net radiation curvesFrom what orifice have you pulled your assertions about insulation and surface area being applicable to my bricks? >>one should note very carefully that there are at least three potentially very important reasons that do not apply to worlds and their atmospheres where trace amounts of gas are added. 1) the hot bar has a heating force capable of pushing the heat in the hot bar higher (e.g. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added)
Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 22, 2016 12:16:32 GMT
OK Andrew I will try to work with your language difficulties. None of the three items above are anything close to assertions. An assertion is a strong and confident statement that something is true. The word "potentially" absolutely rules any of these statements out to be asseertions. You should be looking at them as audit questions and explain why clearly and concisely why these would apply and meet the standard of evidence or proof within the context of the scientific method. If you need a little more help I will point out the precise issue in fewer words and that should help with your reading comprehension problem. 1) An embedded source of heat in an object is fundamentally different that a source of heat that first must pass through the cooler object alleged to be causing the warming, hit the surface of alleged heated object, conduct some of that heat into the core. Your example, skips over all those steps and assumes the heat arrived on site and had did already everything but took the last step of having its surface heated additionally. In other words you need to establish that in fact your "one way glass" operates as intended and that the placement of said one way gas changes anything in regards to applying the Engineers Curve. Obviously you have offered up no experiment or established principle to show that. 2)A brick is not a gas. I really don't need to say more. Apples and Oranges experiments always need to be suspect. 3) Gases dissipate heat much faster than conduction and conduction is a much stronger force than radiation. Key to a large greenhouse effect as opposed to an anemic one that I have already acknowledged, and pointed out by G&T was the need for a very small amount of CO2 to support a great deal of warming. Your experiment relied on a brick and conduction. . . .and your results were anemic to the tune of about a tenth of a degree. Switching to radiation and gases its hard to see if you could have achieved a measurable outcome. I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility of a weak effect at nighttime and thats not what I am uncertain of. You keep saying this. I am not disputing the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Loss curves. You have to first establish that within the earth atmospheric system such losses are not already occurring and if any changes have occurred between the heated object and the cooler object. You want to insert a third object to get your desired reaction. You need to demonstrate the 3 items above to see if the insertion of a third item, CO2, will cause any changes to occur in the first place. So the bottom line is there were no assertions by me. The burden of proof is on you and all you are doing trying to flip the burden of proof. You may as well admit that you can't point to any established principle in science that supports the greenhouse effect and you also have not demonstrated it. All you are doing is mixing apples and oranges, extrapolating ideas, and basically doing what any man of average intelligence would avoid doing. Sort of end of story unless you demonstrate the effect or refer to relevant and established principles that don't make the same moronic assumptions you make. You fail the audit again. You need to be able to write down your objections or assertions about reality in such a manner that I can understand them. You are indeed a moron. So let me understand you. You claim: 1) A light passing through an object is the same as it not passing through an object. 2) A brick is a gas 3) It doesn't matter how much warmth it all actually creates, net zero is fine. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 22, 2016 12:28:53 GMT
You fail the audit again. You need to be able to write down your objections or assertions about reality in such a manner that I can understand them. You are indeed a moron. So let me understand you. You claim: 1) A light passing through and object is the same as it not passing through an object. 2) A brick is a gas 3) It doesn't matter how much warmth it all actually creates, net zero is fine. LOL! Another massive audit fail, and a repeated failure to answer the questions put to you by the auditor. Why are you objecting to Spencers radiation thought experiment by asserting insulation of the bars and surface area can invalidate the predicted results when the experiment is trivially true if the engineers radiation net heat loss curves are correct? >>one should note very carefully that there are at least three potentially very important reasons that do not apply to worlds and their atmospheres where trace amounts of gas are added. 1) the hot bar has a heating force capable of pushing the heat in the hot bar higher (e.g. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added)
Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 22, 2016 13:21:34 GMT
you don't understand that a brick is not a gas? you are trolling Andrew! Don't you have anything better to do?
|
|