|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 9:07:02 GMT
I should have marked one of your comments above as not being correct. I originally marked it correct. The core of the cooling brick is always heating the surface. With that in mind please answer that post again. well at this point i am at a loss of words. clearly the surface of the first brick is warming from conduction and redistribution of existing heat in the brick and did not gain any heat from the second brick thereby remaining consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. so we did not have any greenhouse warming either. so what was the objective of this experiment? It should be clear that no violation of the second law of thermodynamics was ever in question. All we are seeing is that when cooling is reduced it can create a temperature rise when a surface is heated. We will get the same result in a vacuum. As predicted by the engineers heat loss curves. And if heating is permanent the heat rise will be permanent and will have nothing to do with the thickness of the colder bar or brick. We get that result or the engineers radiation heat curves are false. Nobody is suggesting they are false. Either the curves are false or we expect the following to be a permanent condition regardless of the thickness of the unheated bar For some reason however that result causes your head to explode or something
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 10:02:21 GMT
well at this point i am at a loss of words. clearly the surface of the first brick is warming from conduction and redistribution of existing heat in the brick and did not gain any heat from the second brick thereby remaining consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. so we did not have any greenhouse warming either. so what was the objective of this experiment? It should be clear that no violation of the second law of thermodynamics was ever in question. All we are seeing is that when cooling is reduced it can create a temperature rise when a surface is heated. We will get the same result in a vacuum. As predicted by the engineers heat loss curves. And if heating is permanent the heat rise will be permanent and will have nothing to do with the thickness of the colder bar or brick. We get that result or the engineers radiation heat curves are false. Nobody is suggesting they are false. Either the curves are false or we expect the following to be a permanent condition regardless of the thickness of the unheated bar For some reason however that result causes your head to explode or something Head explode? I said when you posted this diagram in the other thread "Well if thats all you were trying to show, there is no dispute that the hot bar alone will cool slower than when in the presence of a relatively warm bar in relationship to the environment." I agree that if you slow cooling you "can" warm something. Thats the whole idea of insulation thats done in home building everyday. I just don't get what you see to be so unique about that. This thread is supposed to be about a greenhouse effect. We have not demonstrated that we have only demonstrated other effects some of which may be part of a greenhouse effect. . . .but clearly the greenhouse effect has not been demonstrated by any experiments you have done. Are you going to hold us in suspense? When are you going to reveal the experiment thats going to win you the Nobel Prize by proving the greenhouse effect?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 10:12:24 GMT
It should be clear that no violation of the second law of thermodynamics was ever in question. All we are seeing is that when cooling is reduced it can create a temperature rise when a surface is heated. We will get the same result in a vacuum. As predicted by the engineers heat loss curves. And if heating is permanent the heat rise will be permanent and will have nothing to do with the thickness of the colder bar or brick. We get that result or the engineers radiation heat curves are false. Nobody is suggesting they are false. Either the curves are false or we expect the following to be a permanent condition regardless of the thickness of the unheated bar For some reason however that result causes your head to explode or something Head explode? I said when you posted this diagram in the other thread "Well if thats all you were trying to show, there is no dispute that the hot bar alone will cool slower than when in the presence of a relatively warm bar in relationship to the environment." I agree that if you slow cooling you "can" warm something. Thats the whole idea of insulation thats done in home building everyday. I just don't get what you see to be so unique about that. This thread is supposed to be about a greenhouse effect. We have not demonstrated that we have only demonstrated other effects some of which may be part of a greenhouse effect. . . .but clearly the greenhouse effect has not been demonstrated by any experiments you have done. Are you going to hold us in suspense? When are you going to reveal the experiment thats going to win you the Nobel Prize by proving the greenhouse effect? I see so you are now fully in agreement with the validity of spencers icebox experiment whereas a few days you had major issues with it and have done for 4 long miserable years and yet you think that creates an intellectual problem for me? Funny ha ha ha. If only it were true. I have no doubt you will continue with your moronic objections for years to come. >>> 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 14, 2016 12:04:05 GMT
I have seen Spencers unconvincing effort along with a few others. Everything I have seen just reinforces Woods.
How I would attempt to show the greenhouse effect would be to create two insulated boxes with transparent lids.
I would make one lid transparent to all wave lengths of light and the lid of the other box transparent to all visible and ultraviolet light but opaque to IR.
So far thats basically what everybody else has done. But I would continue in the design effort as follows.
In designing these lids I would triple glaze the lids with a vacuum between the panes and insulate the sides and bottoms of the boxes to really close off at least 80 to 90% of heat losses due to conduction.
I would consider any difference in conductivity of the different materials used for the transparent lids and adjust the thickness of the panes to achieve equal conductivity of heat.
I would be careful to ensure, tinting if necessary, that both lids were equally transparent to the wavelengths of light they have in common.
then with a thermometer in each box expose them to sunlight.
If the raw greenhouse effect has any umph at all these boxes with the triple vacuum glazing should kick ass on a greenhouse effect since a 100% of the heat loss from IR will be blocked in one box, convection 100% and conductionblocked in b
As I recall you can collect just about anywhere below 70deg latitude about 800 watts/m2 for a couple of hours around noon on a clear day with a fixed tilted collector.
800watts in a highly insulated box should hit a temperature somewhere around 345K by restricting convection
Warmists claim a doubling of CO2 would only add 4watts or about 1% of the base ~400watts. With good insulation and 100% IR radiation blocking it should not be difficult to retain well over half the solar heat collected in the boxes and get a 100K rise in temperature if the theory is correct and the sun has the punch to keep warming the box above its maximum black body temperature.
Sounds like a damned easy experiment compared to what the warmists wanted the Svensgaard people to do, namely create and atmospheric chamber connected into a super collider.
Its not beyond a garage job experiment. The only tricky part is building good triple glazed lids. Plus if it works it will be a good prototype for building solar ovens on dual solar tracking frames where you can get over 950 watts from about 8am to 4pm on sunny days. What a cool turkey roaster that would be if the greenhouse theory is real.
I would do it but I already know it will fail the Woods attempt was good enough.
Of course I have always recognized that a reduction in nighttime cooling will have some effect on average temperatures. But thats a discussion that simply does not seem alarming. My estimate, which I did here almost 7 years ago is a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmospher will have approximately a one watt effect.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 12:27:57 GMT
I have seen Spencers unconvincing effort So all you have to do now is convince the Nobel committee that modern radiation ideas are wrong and the Nobel prize is yours.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 18:58:41 GMT
I have seen Spencers unconvincing effort I see, so for over 4 years you have claimed it violates the laws of physics and have been kicking the shit out of anybody who tries to explain just how simple that set up is, which even a school boy can understand, and then in a blink of an eye you you decide it is unconvincing and you feel qualified to offer up something more interesting and I am supposed to be the ego maniac? I really do not understand how you can do that. It is really quite impressive. On the one hand there is denial and then there is your denial. It is mind boggling. Well at least it boggles my mind. What I have called out as a probable violation of the laws of physics is 1) that backradiation can warm anything by itself (e.g. the dead body or brick that somebody throws a blanket over or puts a cooler brick next to) and for that I am not talking about a redistribution of heat. and 2) that the sun can warm something above its blackbody maximum temperature as calculated from the inverse square distance law. The result if you take most of the warming out of global warming you probably should call it global climate stabilization. That should scare everybody right? Especially if you can accompany it with news that natural variation doesn't exist! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2016 19:04:32 GMT
The only place that CO2 plays an important roll in the earth radiation balance is high in the troposphere and stratosphere.
Once again, the laws of placement of reflection/curvature of the earth play a roll.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2016 19:06:18 GMT
Andrew: Being you live where it gets a little bit cold, you should understand the above.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2016 4:22:39 GMT
I see, so for over 4 years you have claimed it violates the laws of physics and have been kicking the shit out of anybody who tries to explain just how simple that set up is, which even a school boy can understand, and then in a blink of an eye you you decide it is unconvincing and you feel qualified to offer up something more interesting and I am supposed to be the ego maniac? I really do not understand how you can do that. It is really quite impressive. On the one hand there is denial and then there is your denial. It is mind boggling. Well at least it boggles my mind. What I have called out as a probable violation of the laws of physics is 1) that backradiation can warm anything by itself (e.g. the dead body or brick that somebody throws a blanket over or puts a cooler brick next to) and for that I am not talking about a redistribution of heat. and 2) that the sun can warm something above its blackbody maximum temperature as calculated from the inverse square distance law. The result if you take most of the warming out of global warming you probably should call it global climate stabilization. That should scare everybody right? Especially if you can accompany it with news that natural variation doesn't exist! LOL! >>e.g. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by Once again you seem confused by basic principles and you have been making this argument since at least February 2012. A black body suspended in space gets a certain temperature depending on its distance from the Sun. Hotter if closer and colder if further out. Therefore regardless of how far away it is from the sun if a one way insulation can be provided the object will get hotter. What has the inverse square distance law got to do with preventing the rise in temperature? So a 255K CO2 molecule is incapable of heating anything above 255K, no matter how far away it radiates to something or what its heat loss rate is. There is no "corollary". The fact that "thinning" of photons does not stop the ability of those photons to heat an object to the same temperature as the source object doesn't say anything about what happens if radiation from a colder object is incident on a warmer object.The Heck! Without work? Only if you suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics Steve or you can magically convert the photons of a 255K emitter into thinned photons from a hotter source! Which I don't think you can do. Perhaps you need to read a little Kelvin yourself and put some facts, observations, and numbers (otherwise know as a leash) on that imaginative mind of yours. I think if you can back that up you probably deserve a Nobel Prize. If you have brilliant ideas you need to communicate them in a different way so they can be understood. What are you talking about? I have no idea at all. >>1) that backradiation can warm anything by itself (e.g. the dead body or brick that somebody throws a blanket over or puts a cooler brick next to) and for that I am not talking about a redistribution of heat. It has been explained to you countless times that if the engineers heat curves are correct then there are no violations of physics when a heated object warms in the presence of nearby absorbing emitting materials. It was also explained to you that cold light theories have no basis in science at all and are only the province of madmen. If you want that Nobel prize you need better marketing of your ideas.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2016 5:38:57 GMT
I have seen Spencers unconvincing effort So all you have to do now is convince the Nobel committee that modern radiation ideas are wrong and the Nobel prize is yours. You need to go back and review the first post in this topic. I said Spencer's efforts were unconvincing. I did not say they were wrong. Also I am not aware of anybody winning the Nobel Prize for claiming somebody is wrong. You win the prize for proving something to be right. . . .which is your position with your math for the greenhouse effect.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2016 5:46:18 GMT
So all you have to do now is convince the Nobel committee that modern radiation ideas are wrong and the Nobel prize is yours. You need to go back and review the first post in this topic. I said Spencer's efforts were unconvincing. I did not say they were wrong. Also I am not aware of anybody winning the Nobel Prize for claiming somebody is wrong. You win the prize for proving something to be right. . . .which is your position with your math for the greenhouse effect. Around 5-6 years ago you began by saying the maths for an idea was impossible. About 4 years ago I only said it was a very simple idea a school boy could understand. At this point in time you are still talking about violations of law when talking about a very simple idea a school boy can understand. All i have learnt so far is you are objecting. I still have no idea why you are objecting. 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. There is no "corollary". The fact that "thinning" of photons does not stop the ability of those photons to heat an object to the same temperature as the source object doesn't say anything about what happens if radiation from a colder object is incident on a warmer object.The Heck! Without work? Only if you suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics Steve or you can magically convert the photons of a 255K emitter into thinned photons from a hotter source! Which I don't think you can do. Perhaps you need to read a little Kelvin yourself and put some facts, observations, and numbers (otherwise know as a leash) on that imaginative mind of yours. I think if you can back that up you probably deserve a Nobel Prize.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2016 6:28:55 GMT
Once again you seem confused by basic principles and you have been making this argument since at least February 2012. A black body suspended in space gets a certain temperature depending on its distance from the Sun. Hotter if closer and colder if further out. Therefore regardless of how far away it is from the sun if a one way insulation can be provided the object will get hotter. Let me explain the problem so you fully understand it. You have a surface, between the surface and the sun is a "layered" atmosphere. Solar rays penetrate the entire atmosphere at full strength (since its transparent in one direction) and now the radiation field is less than a a micron away from the surface with no more atmospheric molecules between it and surface. Bottom line is there is no unique property created by the atmosphere as far as the surface is concerned in receiving radiation from the sun. What you have is a sun shining at 500 watts and a surface at a temperature so its emitting 500 watts. the net effect is zero. Note that the only factor in radiation with regards to distance from the source of light is the inverse square distance law. But we already applied that to get the radiation field down to 500watt/m2 now less than a micron from being absorbed by the surface. Your calculation when applied in accordance with the rules wants to do the math based upon how much energy that was able to penetrate the atmosphere, but thats NOT where the surface is going to absorb the solar radiation. If you review the below chart you note that the maths above are consistent with the chart you like to refer to. I'm all good with the bricks warming because they have sources of heat that don't violate the rules. But those experiments don't prove squat with regards to what the discussion has been all about and I am still waiting for you to notice that. I understand the complexity of the problem when you start creating multiple interactions and how you might want to start summing things together but there is no evidence that the sun is teaming up with the CO2 to create a hotter field of downwelling radiation. These processes are discrete and may be incapable of acting in summed manners with each acting independentlyh as it would if the other were not there. I see the same sort of issue with Maxwell's flames. Photons are incredibly fast and incredibly small there is absolutely no reason that colder light rays can penetrate a flame and become perceived by the eye that the flame absorbed the photons when in fact the only place they ended up was in your eye. Obviously there is no body of work that establishes the clear answer but that doesn't stop egotistical people from believing they know the right answer. Read that article I posted in the first post in this thread for a discussion of those kinds of issues.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2016 6:31:11 GMT
Around 5-6 years ago you began by saying the maths for an idea was impossible. About 4 years ago I only said it was a very simple idea a school boy could understand. At this point in time you are still talking about violations of law when talking about a very simple idea a school boy can understand. All i have learnt so far is you are objecting. I still have no idea why you are objecting. Thats fine Andrew. I do understand what you are saying, I just am not seeing any evidence that its right.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2016 6:39:18 GMT
Once again you seem confused by basic principles and you have been making this argument since at least February 2012. A black body suspended in space gets a certain temperature depending on its distance from the Sun. Hotter if closer and colder if further out. Therefore regardless of how far away it is from the sun if a one way insulation can be provided the object will get hotter. Let me explain the problem so you fully understand it. You have a surface, between the surface and the sun is a "layered" atmosphere. Solar rays penetrate the entire atmosphere at full strength (since its transparent in one direction) and now the radiation field is less than a a micron away from the surface with no more atmospheric molecules between it and surface. Bottom line is there is no unique property created by the atmosphere as far as the surface is concerned in receiving radiation from the sun. What you have is a sun shining at 500 watts and a surface at a temperature so its emitting 500 watts. the net effect is zero. Note that the only factor in radiation with regards to distance from the source of light is the inverse square distance law. But we already applied that to get the radiation field down to 500watt/m2 now less than a micron from being absorbed by the surface. Your calculation when applied in accordance with the rules wants to do the math based upon how much energy that was able to penetrate the atmosphere, but thats NOT where the surface is going to absorb the solar radiation. If you review the below chart you note that the maths above are consistent with the chart you like to refer to. I'm all good with the bricks warming because they have sources of heat that don't violate the rules. But those experiments don't prove squat with regards to what the discussion has been all about and I am still waiting for you to notice that. I understand the complexity of the problem when you start creating multiple interactions and how you might want to start summing things together but there is no evidence that the sun is teaming up with the CO2 to create a hotter field of downwelling radiation. These processes are discrete and may be incapable of acting in summed manners with each acting independentlyh as it would if the other were not there. I see the same sort of issue with Maxwell's flames. Photons are incredibly fast and incredibly small there is absolutely no reason that colder light rays can penetrate a flame and become perceived by the eye that the flame absorbed the photons when in fact the only place they ended up was in your eye. Obviously there is no body of work that establishes the clear answer but that doesn't stop egotistical people from believing they know the right answer. Read that article I posted in the first post in this thread for a discussion of those kinds of issues. I have no idea what you are trying to explain to me. You have been talking about rule violation for 6 years. Which rules are being violated? >>Bottom line is there is no unique property created by the atmosphere as far as the surface is concerned in receiving radiation from the sun. What you have is a sun shining at 500 watts and a surface at a temperature so its emitting 500 watts. the net effect is zero. This is the introduction to what you want to talk about. How can it be the bottom line?? You should be able to use Spencers very simple ice box thought experiment as the basis of why you told me my bricks were not warmed by radiation but rather only warmed because of conduction and convection. Spencers proposal has a vacuum and yet you still have multiple objections to it. 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. There is no "corollary". The fact that "thinning" of photons does not stop the ability of those photons to heat an object to the same temperature as the source object doesn't say anything about what happens if radiation from a colder object is incident on a warmer object.The Heck! Without work? Only if you suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics Steve or you can magically convert the photons of a 255K emitter into thinned photons from a hotter source! Which I don't think you can do. Perhaps you need to read a little Kelvin yourself and put some facts, observations, and numbers (otherwise know as a leash) on that imaginative mind of yours. I think if you can back that up you probably deserve a Nobel Prize.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2016 7:10:32 GMT
I have no idea what you are trying to explain to me. You have been talking about rule violation for 6 years. Which rules are being violated? LOL! >>Bottom line is there is no unique property created by the atmosphere as far as the surface is concerned in receiving radiation from the sun. What you have is a sun shining at 500 watts and a surface at a temperature so its emitting 500 watts. the net effect is zero. This is the introduction to what you want to talk about. How can it be the bottom line?? Its both the introduction and the bottom line because its supported by your own source the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Chart You should be able to use Spencers very simple ice box thought experiment as the basis of why you told me my bricks were not warmed by radiation but rather only warmed because of conduction and convection. Spencers proposal has a vacuum and yet you still have multiple objections to it. If you want to discuss one of Spencer's proposals you will need to provide a link to which one you want to discuss.
|
|