|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 21:24:11 GMT
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?? Sure why not? I started this phase with a trillion tiny point sources of light replacing the sphere. I have to admit thats a lot harder to understand than changing the solid sphere into a screen. Figured that the tiny points of light could feed into a calculation much easier with this:
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 21:52:24 GMT
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?? Sure why not? I started this phase with a trillion tiny point sources of light replacing the sphere. I have to admit thats a lot harder to understand than changing the solid sphere into a screen. Figured that the tiny points of light could feed into a calculation much easier with this: So we have an earth size ball surrounded by a mesh at 495K a few miles from the ball able to heat the earth to 15c say. And we compare that to the same object surrounded by the same heating power heating the object to 15C say but this time provided by a solid surface that is a considerably lower temperature than 495k and will be in fact be the same temperature as the ball - 15C Presumably we now add the glass balls and presumably the 495k radiation can pass thru the balls but radiation from the surface cannot pass thru balls and instead heats them which i am supposing is going to cause the surface to become hotter since the heat losses from the surface have been reduced. So it seems to be just spencers thought experiment expressed differently.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 22:31:16 GMT
Sure why not? I started this phase with a trillion tiny point sources of light replacing the sphere. I have to admit thats a lot harder to understand than changing the solid sphere into a screen. Figured that the tiny points of light could feed into a calculation much easier with this: So we have an earth size ball surrounded by a mesh at 495K a few miles from the ball able to heat the earth to 15c say. And we compare that to the same object surrounded by the same heating power heating the object to 15C say but this time provided by a solid surface that is a considerably lower temperature than 495k and will be in fact be the same temperature as the ball - 15C Presumably we now add the glass balls and presumably the 495k radiation can pass thru the balls but radiation from the surface cannot pass thru balls and instead heats them which i am supposing is going to cause the surface to become hotter since the heat losses from the surface have been reduced. So it seems to be just spencers thought experiment expressed differently. Thats right! Since everything of substance absorbs some light, whether solely by accidental collision. the equilibrium temperature of the glass balls will be the same as everything else. Nothing in the atmosphere escapes some level of heating and an eventual warming to the same temperature.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 22:39:33 GMT
So we have an earth size ball surrounded by a mesh at 495K a few miles from the ball able to heat the earth to 15c say. And we compare that to the same object surrounded by the same heating power heating the object to 15C say but this time provided by a solid surface that is a considerably lower temperature than 495k and will be in fact be the same temperature as the ball - 15C Presumably we now add the glass balls and presumably the 495k radiation can pass thru the balls but radiation from the surface cannot pass thru balls and instead heats them which i am supposing is going to cause the surface to become hotter since the heat losses from the surface have been reduced. So it seems to be just spencers thought experiment expressed differently. Thats right! Since everything of substance absorbs some light, whether solely by accidental collision. the equilibrium temperature of the glass balls will be the same as everything else. Nothing in the atmosphere escapes some level of heating and an eventual warming to the same temperature. The glass balls are colder than the surface which is heated above 15C. There only source of heating is a distant object just above 15C and they lose energy to space.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 22:41:24 GMT
Thats right! Since everything of substance absorbs some light, whether solely by accidental collision. the equilibrium temperature of the glass balls will be the same as everything else. Nothing in the atmosphere escapes some level of heating and an eventual warming to the same temperature. The glass balls are considerably colder than the surface which is heated above 15C. There only source of heating is a distant object just above 15C and they can cool to space So you are claiming the lapse rate is a radiant effect in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 24, 2016 22:41:47 GMT
Firstly...I'm quite impressed how you guys get around the swearing filter...
Also, congrats on agreeing about something!! It's genuinely good to see!!
I reckon if a common viewpoint can be found in your ways of thinking....The thorough rinsing the subject has been given here will have found a true glimmer of truth.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 22:43:25 GMT
congrats on agreeing about something!! Not
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 22:46:15 GMT
The glass balls are considerably colder than the surface which is heated above 15C. There only source of heating is a distant object just above 15C and they can cool to space So you are claiming the lapse rate is a radiant effect in the atmosphere? What the f**k are you talking about now?? The balls cannot be heated to the same temperature as the surface. There only source of heating is at a distance from them and they can cool to space. 90% of the freeking sky is 3k
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 22:54:59 GMT
So you are claiming the lapse rate is a radiant effect in the atmosphere? What the f**k are you talking about now?? The balls cannot be heated to the same temperature as the surface. There only source of heating is at a distance from them and they can cool to space. Thats not what I said Andrew. You and Steve have talked about how the greenhouse effect is built on numerous absorptions and emissions through the height of the atmosphere. Steve even had a mathematical model that assumed 20 layers. Presumably each layer would be warmer until you get to the bottom layer which would exhibit the maximum greenhouse effect. The CO2 molecules at the top of the atmosphere would fully controlled by the "screen" mean radiant temperature in both cooling and heating so that top layer would be 15.5C, unless of course you think it would be hotter. No way for it be cooler. (keep in mind that we are talking about mythic sphere, steel ball, and a bunch of glass beads and not an atmosphere that behaves differently from gravity and the decompression of gases. Also keep in mind the cooling from the decompression of gas stops when the decompression stops and all the stuffed cooled by it will gravitate to a higher temperature like a spray can does when you push the button for a minute then let up.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 23:02:40 GMT
What the f**k are you talking about now?? The balls cannot be heated to the same temperature as the surface. There only source of heating is at a distance from them and they can cool to space. Thats not what I said Andrew. You and Steve have talked about how the greenhouse effect is built on numerous absorptions and emissions through the height of the atmosphere. Steve even had a mathematical model that assumed 20 layers. Presumably each layer would be warmer until you get to the bottom layer which would exhibit the maximum greenhouse effect. The CO2 molecules at the top of the atmosphere would fully controlled by the "screen" mean radiant temperature in both cooling and heating so that top layer would be 15.5C, unless of course you think it would be hotter. No way for it be cooler. (keep in mind that we are talking about mythic sphere, steel ball, and a bunch of glass beads and not an atmosphere that behaves differently from gravity and the decompression of gases. Also keep in mind the cooling from the decompression of gas stops when the decompression stops and all the stuffed cooled by it will gravitate to a higher temperature like a spray can does when you push the button for a minute then let up. Whatever dipshit. You are fortunate that Kevin is such a useless moderator, because after calling me a liar for 4 years your assets are seriously at risk if I ever do find out who you are.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 0:13:40 GMT
Thats not what I said Andrew. You and Steve have talked about how the greenhouse effect is built on numerous absorptions and emissions through the height of the atmosphere. Steve even had a mathematical model that assumed 20 layers. Presumably each layer would be warmer until you get to the bottom layer which would exhibit the maximum greenhouse effect. The CO2 molecules at the top of the atmosphere would fully controlled by the "screen" mean radiant temperature in both cooling and heating so that top layer would be 15.5C, unless of course you think it would be hotter. No way for it be cooler. (keep in mind that we are talking about mythic sphere, steel ball, and a bunch of glass beads and not an atmosphere that behaves differently from gravity and the decompression of gases. Also keep in mind the cooling from the decompression of gas stops when the decompression stops and all the stuffed cooled by it will gravitate to a higher temperature like a spray can does when you push the button for a minute then let up. Whatever dipshit. You are fortunate that Kevin is such a useless moderator, because after calling me a liar for 4 years your assets are seriously at risk if I ever do find out who you are. Relax Andrew. Nobody knows who you are either.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 16:30:48 GMT
I was thinking something more depressing along these lines.
We've got 5 years! what a surprise!
We've got 5 years! My brain hurts a lot!
----------------
Only another year to go.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 25, 2016 17:14:54 GMT
Geez what a dose of reality
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 26, 2016 20:47:41 GMT
Thats right! Since everything of substance absorbs some light, whether solely by accidental collision. the equilibrium temperature of the glass balls will be the same as everything else. Nothing in the atmosphere escapes some level of heating and an eventual warming to the same temperature. The glass balls are colder than the surface which is heated above 15C. There only source of heating is a distant object just above 15C and they lose energy to space. Well that suggests that radiation has a behavior completely unlike solid materials and materials in contact with each other. The model I favor would instead suggest that the entire sphere and all its contents would reach the same temperature, emitting exactly what it received. The fact it takes the heat down deep into its bowels is of no long term consequence. Indeed though depending upon the number of photon/electron exchanges it makes and the speed it makes them has a lot to do with how fast that equilibrium is achieved. I can recognize numerous accuracy issues with the Woods experiment did not show any greenhouse effect, but I am convinced that a properly done one would not either. I have seen the saran wrap to glass experiments that have shown a alleged greenhouse effect but when you consider that the IR transparent saran wrap has something like a 1:40 less thermal resistance to conductance than a pane of glass those experiments are fatally flawed. I recognize the difficulty of constructing such an experiment in ones garage, as Spencer did. But I am also convinced that it would be a far lesser undertaking that what was demanded of Svensmark's ionization theory to construct an environment that isolated ionization by very high energy rays from other factors. If anybody wants to test that I know they spent north of 16 million on the ionization experiment. Send me a check and I will do the job right. I will spend the money wisely in obtaining containers with highly consistent surface textures, relectivity, and spectral to ensure each box performs as near to identical as possible. I will manufacture these and covers in a diligent manner ensuring each container has as near as possible identical conductivity characteristics. I will create a large vessel to do the experiment in that makes as neutral as possible any differences in environmental conditions (wind, temperature, light, and reflection). I will install radiant heat sources and calibrate them as close as possible both on the basis of spectra and intensity. I will purchase the best measuring equipment possible to monitor the experiment. I will select gas mixtures to fill the containers and environment that most closely match in their conductivity and heat capacities to best isolate any radiative effect. I will obtain the best detector equipment possible to measure the correct light transmission rates between the covers to be able to calculate an expected warming figure for your model. I would hire top engineering designers to specify the materials, technology, equipment, and coatings to use. I would find and locate the most precision manufacturing facilities I can find that can to the work. I would hire top physicists to conduct the experiment. I would take no payment for my time and effort, instead look at that effort as a charitable contribution for mankind, though I would have to cover any travel expenses that I might need to engage in, however, I doubt that there would be much necessary travel and would agree to a budget after the production of a proposal. Expensive yes but as conclusive as possible. Conduction must be tightly controlled because its the most powerful force in heat transfer. All this should be very doable as your model implies that the theoretical maximum effect by getting it 100% identical. That would be the basic 50% boost in heat your model implies. So a doubling of CO2 is estimated base line with a sensitivity factor of 1.00 is expected to produce a 50% boost in heat. I expect it to not be zero but close to zero. Using total IR blockage and 100% efficiency one should be able to achieve almost a 60C increase in temperature according to your model. If you can build a system that calcs out to 80% efficiency, well past 40C should be a good validation of your model. And if all you could get were 20C you could get me to admit that your model is more likely than my model. Then and only then do we have an opportunity to put all this nonsense to rest. I suspect that the whole thing could be done for a lot less than the ionization experiment which no doubt cost an awful lot more from the use of location and equipment at the site of the supercollider.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 5:19:20 GMT
all its contents would reach the same temperature, emitting exactly what it received. depending upon the number of photon/electron exchanges it makes and the speed it makes them has a lot to do with how fast that equilibrium is achieved. You are mixing up the idea of thermal equilibrium/thermodynamic equilibrium with another idea called steady state. When your system reaches a steady state, energy is being driven thru the system by the heater and then the energy is leaving that system. This is a one way process. Thermal equilibrium requires a two way process in all parts of the system. Only if you close the gaps to create a solid surface at 495k and no 3k can you eventually get thermal equilibrium and a uniform temperature of 495k
|
|