|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 17:53:39 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know. I cleaned out the malarkey! Its not a question its an assertion! You deny that assertion? A simple yes or no please.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 17:59:57 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know. I cleaned out the malarkey! Its not a question its an assertion! You deny that assertion? A simple yes or no please. It is irrelevant. the greenhouse idea is a very simple idea that cannot be disputed without disputing the science of the last two hundred years. In the G&T refutation blog a great deal of time was spent trying to show G&T claim that warming of the surface by a colder atmosphere was not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The discussion on it by the AGW scientists was hilarious. Oh it doesn't heat the surface it nets out surface radiation. "nets out" ? For 4 long painful years you have been calling me a liar. And for what? Simply because you are too stupid to understand something a child can understand. Alternately you are insane or you just enjoy baiting people for no purpose whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 18:15:29 GMT
Getting away from the ego diversion lets continue the exploration (note: several steps to come so please stay on topic!) If you take a steel ball with no source of heat inside of a hollow steel sphere and heat the outside of the steel sphere until it is a uniform equalized temperature of 15c how hot is the steel ball? Seems we all agree everything is going to be 15C So the next thing we are going to do is float some glass beads in the space between the steel ball and the inside surface of the sphere.Uh lets just call it a gas why not! So what temperature would the gas be when its all warmed as much as its going to warm, without any lapse rate? Seems we still all agree that everything is going to be 15C So lets modify our sphere slightly lets turn it into an evenly distributed sphere of trillions of tiny points of VISIBLE light that radiates the identical amount of radiation on average as did our 15C sphere. Has the "mean" temperature or "mean" cooling rate changed for anything in our thought experiment?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 18:20:28 GMT
Getting away from the ego diversion Bullshit. You are creating the diversion. For four long painful years you have been calling me a liar and yet even the most stupid person should now realise the engineers net radiation heating curves totally support the greenhouse idea. Steve in one of the threads below assumes backradiation warming of the climate system to be a fact. Then the modelers take this assumption and attempt to fit it into climate models for predictive purposes. There is no evidence of warming resulting from backradiation
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 18:31:13 GMT
Lets continue the exploration (note: several steps to come so please stay on topic!) If you take a steel ball with no source of heat inside of a hollow steel sphere and heat the outside of the steel sphere until it is a uniform equalized temperature of 15c how hot is the steel ball? Seems we all agree everything is going to be 15C So the next thing we are going to do is float some glass beads in the space between the steel ball and the inside surface of the sphere.Uh lets just call it a gas why not! So what temperature would the gas be when its all warmed as much as its going to warm, without any lapse rate? Seems we still all agree that everything is going to be 15C So lets modify our sphere slightly lets turn it into an evenly distributed sphere of trillions of tiny points of VISIBLE light that radiates the identical amount of radiation on average as did our 15C sphere. Has the "mean" temperature or "mean" cooling rate changed for anything in our thought experiment? And yes if the "mean" cooling rate is changed the Engineering Toolbox curve would apply but we are not done yet. Lets just answer this question if you can.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 18:45:51 GMT
Lets continue the exploration (note: several steps to come so please stay on topic!) If you take a steel ball with no source of heat inside of a hollow steel sphere and heat the outside of the steel sphere until it is a uniform equalized temperature of 15c how hot is the steel ball? Seems we all agree everything is going to be 15C So the next thing we are going to do is float some glass beads in the space between the steel ball and the inside surface of the sphere.Uh lets just call it a gas why not! So what temperature would the gas be when its all warmed as much as its going to warm, without any lapse rate? Seems we still all agree that everything is going to be 15C So lets modify our sphere slightly lets turn it into an evenly distributed sphere of trillions of tiny points of VISIBLE light that radiates the identical amount of radiation on average as did our 15C sphere. Has the "mean" temperature or "mean" cooling rate changed for anything in our thought experiment? And yes if the "mean" cooling rate is changed the Engineering Toolbox curve would apply but we are not done yet. Lets just answer this question if you can. 1000000000 Watts of heating coming from a 15C heater cannot heat a 15C object .0000000001 watts of heating coming from a 15.00000000000001C heater can heat a 15C object.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 19:08:32 GMT
Lets continue the exploration (note: several steps to come so please stay on topic!) Seems we all agree everything is going to be 15C Seems we still all agree that everything is going to be 15C So lets modify our sphere slightly lets turn it into an evenly distributed sphere of trillions of tiny points of VISIBLE light that radiates the identical amount of radiation on average as did our 15C sphere. Has the "mean" temperature or "mean" cooling rate changed for anything in our thought experiment? And yes if the "mean" cooling rate is changed the Engineering Toolbox curve would apply but we are not done yet. Lets just answer this question if you can. 1000000000 Watts of heating coming from a 15C heater cannot heat a 15C object .0000000001 watts of heating coming from a 15.00000000000001C heater can heat a 15C object. Sure I agree with that. But its not clear to me that the mean cooling rate has changed. It seems to be an artificial bifurcation of the idea of all space average temperature which includes the sun and adds up to a mean rate. Its hard to imagine with one point in the sky but it gets a little clearer if the sky is filled with trillions of tiny points of light and it begins to merge with the 15C solid barrier. What seems to emerge to feed my skepticism is that the changing cooling rate is only real between the glass beads that pass the visible light and absorb the IR light from the surface. But does that make for a change in temperature simply because the light changed its spectrum? Maybe so, maybe not. It seems something worth demonstrating as thought Robert W. Woods way back in 1909.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 19:41:11 GMT
1000000000 Watts of heating coming from a 15C heater cannot heat a 15C object .0000000001 watts of heating coming from a 15.00000000000001C heater can heat a 15C object. Sure I agree with that. But its not clear to me that the mean cooling rate has changed. It seems to be an artificial bifurcation of the idea of all space average temperature which includes the sun and adds up to a mean rate. Its hard to imagine with one point in the sky but it gets a little clearer if the sky is filled with trillions of tiny points of light and it begins to merge with the 15C solid barrier. What seems to emerge to feed my skepticism is that the changing cooling rate is only real between the glass beads that pass the visible light and absorb the IR light from the surface. But does that make for a change in temperature simply because the light changed its spectrum? Maybe so, maybe not. It seems something worth demonstrating as thought Robert W. Woods way back in 1909. Your thought experiment is all up the spout to begin with. if you surround the ball with a 'solid' source of temperature then the temperature of the 'solid' source will always be the temperature of the ball. If a gas cloud surrounds earth and it is shining brightly how hot do you imagine the earth will be? The temperature only becomes lower than the tiny sources of heat if there are significant openings allowing heat to pass thru the source of heat to a colder object. If you want to describe complex things you need first to understand simple things. Time and time again you show you do not understand simple things and yet you talk in a grandiose way about things that are very complicated indeed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 19:56:40 GMT
Your thought experiment is all up the spout to begin with. if you surround the ball with a 'solid' source of temperature then the temperature of the 'solid' source will always be the temperature of the ball. If a gas cloud surrounds earth and it is shining brightly how hot do you imagine the earth will be? The temperature only becomes lower than the tiny sources of heat if there are significant openings allowing heat to pass thru the source of heat to a colder object. If you want to describe complex things you need first to understand simple things. Time and time again you show you do not understand simple things and yet you talk in a grandiose way about things that are very complicated indeed. Sure but that sheds no light on the problem. We are talking mean cooling, and mean radiant temperature. A solid surface that is 15.5C allowing nothing to escape going to result in a different surface temperature of the steel ball and glass beads than a hot screen which radiates same mean wattage per square foot? Why would cooling be figured any different than warming? What brilliant 19th century scientist figured that out?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 20:18:12 GMT
Your thought experiment is all up the spout to begin with. if you surround the ball with a 'solid' source of temperature then the temperature of the 'solid' source will always be the temperature of the ball. If a gas cloud surrounds earth and it is shining brightly how hot do you imagine the earth will be? The temperature only becomes lower than the tiny sources of heat if there are significant openings allowing heat to pass thru the source of heat to a colder object. If you want to describe complex things you need first to understand simple things. Time and time again you show you do not understand simple things and yet you talk in a grandiose way about things that are very complicated indeed. Sure but that sheds no light on the problem. We are talking mean cooling, and mean radiant temperature. A solid surface that is 15.5C allowing nothing to escape going to result in a different surface temperature of the steel ball and glass beads than a hot screen which radiates same mean wattage per square foot? Why would cooling be figured any different than warming? What brilliant 19th century scientist figured that out? I cannot understand what that means so that i can answer it. Your use of english is usually very poor indeed. And typically this reply is full of snark. What intelligent comment do you want to make? Once again i have no idea. You cannot place an object inside a heat source and cause it to be hotter or colder by insulating it
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 20:20:30 GMT
Well anyway enough of that line of thought. Take from what you want but I see a good line of reasoning for why there would be no greenhouse effect due to alleged slowing of cooling beyond what a standard insulation calculation would reveal and then only until a partial equilibrium was reached even if the temperature is fluctuating due to diurnal and seasonal cycles as those fluctuations would be around the mean.
On to the next issue:
The same amount of IR absorbed coming in may be the same as what is absorbed going out. The calculation is quite easy. The mean radiation coming in to the earth system is 341 watts/m2. Equilibrium temperature per Stefan Boltzmann equations is the same despite the absorption rate of radiation. Whether an object be reflecting light or transmitting light through itself the absorption rate does not establish the equilibrium temperature, it only affects warming and cooling rates equally. If anybody has a problem with that they need to take that up with the Stefan Boltzmann equations and the heart of basic thermodynamics.
So I have seen how warmists describe what goes on with a CO2 molecule when it absorbs some energy. It then casts that energy off in all directions. If the emissivity of substance is .12 (approximately what CO2 is) then an effective one square meter of CO2 surface area would absorb about 41 watts of energy.
For incoming sunlight the atmosphere is not subject to calculations for the surface of a hemisphere, so the average exposure to sunlight for the atmosphere is 682watts/m2. And because sunlight is 50% IR it should be absorbing 41 watts incoming.
What all that suggests is that the only way to create one way glass is coat it with a partially transparent reflecting coating. Except that really only works visually as no matter the reflectivity the glass is going to warm up to the same equilibrium room temperature and emit radiation out the other side in accordance with its emissivity. If you put the same coating on both sides of the glass and both rooms are equally lighted there is zero one way effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 20:29:23 GMT
Sure but that sheds no light on the problem. We are talking about mean cooling, and about mean radiant temperature. A solid surface that is 15.5C (which allows nothing to escape between molecules) is going to result in an equilibrium temperature dictated by the mean radiant temperature of the radiating source.
Your claim is essentially that if the radiant surface is a screen with a mean radiant temperature per unit surface area the cooling rate will be changed and the mean cooling rate per unit surface area will be different.
I apologize for not proof reading the original statement and confusing you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 20:37:37 GMT
Sure but that sheds no light on the problem. We are talking about mean cooling, and about mean radiant temperature. A solid surface that is 15.5C (which allows nothing to escape between molecules) is going to result in an equilibrium temperature dictated by the mean radiant temperature of the radiating source. Your claim is essentially that if the radiant surface is a screen with a mean radiant temperature per unit surface area the cooling rate will be changed and the mean cooling rate per unit surface area will be different. I apologize for not proof reading the original statement and confusing you. What is a screen? How does an object have a mean radiant temperature?? My claim is spencer is correct. 3 temperatures blah blah blah. What is yours? You need to speak in ways that can be understood. >>the cooling rate will be changed and the mean cooling rate per unit surface area will be different.Can i assume my strike thru does not change your meaning? Why are you talking about mean cooling. Why not just say cooling?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 20:54:58 GMT
Sure but that sheds no light on the problem. We are talking about mean cooling, and about mean radiant temperature. A solid surface that is 15.5C (which allows nothing to escape between molecules) is going to result in an equilibrium temperature dictated by the mean radiant temperature of the radiating source. Your claim is essentially that if the radiant surface is a screen with a mean radiant temperature per unit surface area the cooling rate will be changed and the mean cooling rate per unit surface area will be different. I apologize for not proof reading the original statement and confusing you. What is a screen? How does an object have a mean radiant temperature?? My claim is spencer is correct. 3 temperatures blah blah blah. What is yours? You need to speak in ways that can be understood. You guys don't have screen doors in Finland? What do I mean by "mean radiant temperature"? I am talking about an aluminum wire screen heated sufficiently so that when you take your cheap little fuucking bolometer from 50feet away it records the screen as having a temperature of 15.5C, obviously you must do it in a vacuum so it doesn't also pick up trillions of air molecules spinning off the screen a fuucking up your bolometer reading of the plane of the screen. What I mean is a screen that presents a square meter of surface area towards you that is 90% 3k deep space and 10% is the area covered by the diameter of the wires in the screen and they are 495K. What is the mean temperature? Show your calculations. Then tell me what the mean cooling rate is showing your calculations also. Then show me how this results in a different cooling rate for the solid sphere that radiates what ever you calculate as the mean radiant temperature of the 1 meter square that is spanned by the hot screen.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 21:12:03 GMT
What is a screen? How does an object have a mean radiant temperature?? My claim is spencer is correct. 3 temperatures blah blah blah. What is yours? You need to speak in ways that can be understood. You guys don't have screen doors in Finland? What do I mean by "mean radiant temperature"? I am talking about an aluminum wire screen heated sufficiently so that when you take your cheap little fuucking bolometer from 50feet away it records the screen as having a temperature of 15.5C, obviously you must do it in a vacuum so it doesn't also pick up trillions of air molecules spinning off the screen a fuucking up your bolometer reading of the plane of the screen. What I mean is a screen that presents a square meter of surface area towards you that is 90% 3k deep space and 10% is the area covered by the diameter of the wires in the screen and they are 495K. What is the mean temperature? Show your calculations. Then tell me what the mean cooling rate is showing your calculations also. Then show me how this results in a different cooling rate for the solid sphere that radiates what ever you calculate as the mean radiant temperature of the 1 meter square that is spanned by the hot screen. I do not understand. Has this got anything to do with the ball and sphere or is it something completely different? Is the mesh surrounding the ball??
|
|