|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2016 7:13:58 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. So I seek clarification and you just show your arse to me I have no idea why you believe what you believe.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2016 7:41:54 GMT
LOL! Its both the introduction and the bottom line because its supported by your own source the Engineering Toolbox Net Radiation Chart If you want to discuss one of Spencer's proposals you will need to provide a link to which one you want to discuss. So I seek clarification and you just show your arse to me I have no idea why you believe what you believe. All I know is we are talking about simple ideas a school boy can understand. I have spent 4 years trying to understand you and totally failed. It is just too depressing to even think about. Utter and total failure to make any progress with you whatsoever. Yes i know you have some ideas but i have totally failed to find out why you have those ideas. Most of the time you have been beating me to a pulp and yet i have persisted in trying to work out from where your ideas originated. Come on Icefisher! Give me something please. its quite simple Andrew. You take basic physics of light and solids then you start extrapolating results for gases and summing multiple interactions while blythely assuming interactions that have never been observed and mathematically summing the effects of multiple processes without any evidence the effects are summable. Its all laid out above and I would suggest you start by supporting your notion that the sun can warm something to a higher temperature than its "effective" temperature after considering how far the light has traveled.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2016 9:49:19 GMT
So I seek clarification and you just show your arse to me I have no idea why you believe what you believe. All I know is we are talking about simple ideas a school boy can understand. I have spent 4 years trying to understand you and totally failed. It is just too depressing to even think about. Utter and total failure to make any progress with you whatsoever. Yes i know you have some ideas but i have totally failed to find out why you have those ideas. Most of the time you have been beating me to a pulp and yet i have persisted in trying to work out from where your ideas originated. Come on Icefisher! Give me something please. its quite simple Andrew. You take basic physics of light and solids then you start extrapolating results for gases and summing multiple interactions while blythely assuming interactions that have never been observed and mathematically summing the effects of multiple processes without any evidence the effects are summable. Its all laid out above and I would suggest you start by supporting your notion that the sun can warm something to a higher temperature than its "effective" temperature after considering how far the light has traveled. The effective temperature rises higher into the atmosphere as the insulating effect increases. In the real world humans build hot dry climate cooling systems by passing radiation thru the warm dry atmosphere to space and cannot do that on hot humid nights and all of this is just simple science for these people. Obviously we are not having a discussion. I have no respect for you and you have no respect for me. It is what is.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2016 18:19:32 GMT
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? Andrew we keep going around in circles on this. You are a true believer, I am a skeptic (read the first post link in this thread so you know the difference). You have been unable to specify the precise source of heat and demonstrate to me that that such a source of heat that is going to warm the surface above its calculated blackbody maximum. Understand carefully I get the idea of cooling potentially lending to a greenhouse effect. But I need first know how an object gets hotter in a radiation field. the whole concept of radiation heat gain and loss is temperature differentials. Hotter objects do not gain heat from colder objects. And for the basic blackbody maximum effective temperature its set by the inverse square distance law! Once at that temperature there is zero additional heat gain from the radiation field. Period end of story! So how does a planetary surface get hotter! And I am not talking a statistic like mean temperature. I mean just plain hotter than its blackbody maximum. What heats it? I am perfectly aware this is not the whole story. But it does seem to be half of it. oh p.s. The other half of it I figure could be the blockage of incoming sunlight since incoming sunlight is 50% IR. At this point then greenhouse gases are cooling. then the feedback, slowing of cooling raising the night time lows brings it back.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 5:54:47 GMT
>>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? Andrew we keep going around in circles on this. You are a true believer, I am a skeptic (read the first post link in this thread so you know the difference). You have been unable to specify the precise source of heat and demonstrate to me that that such a source of heat that is going to warm the surface above its calculated blackbody maximum. Understand carefully I get the idea of cooling potentially lending to a greenhouse effect. But I need first know how an object gets hotter in a radiation field. the whole concept of radiation heat gain and loss is temperature differentials. Hotter objects do not gain heat from colder objects. And for the basic blackbody maximum effective temperature its set by the inverse square distance law! Once at that temperature there is zero additional heat gain from the radiation field. Period end of story! So how does a planetary surface get hotter! And I am not talking a statistic like mean temperature. I mean just plain hotter than its blackbody maximum. What heats it? I am perfectly aware this is not the whole story. But it does seem to be half of it. oh p.s. The other half of it I figure could be the blockage of incoming sunlight since incoming sunlight is 50% IR. At this point then greenhouse gases are cooling. then the feedback, slowing of cooling raising the night time lows brings it back. A heated object becomes hotter when insulated. Distance from the heater is irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2016 6:18:00 GMT
Insulation works both ways. An object completely emmersed in insulation will no longer be heated as the r value overcomes the penetration of the radiation.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 6:19:50 GMT
Insulation works both ways. An object completely emmersed in insulation will no longer be heated as the r value overcomes the penetration of the radiation. As explained a stupid number of times so that even the most stupid of people can understand by now, the atmosphere provides a one way insulating effect because high energy light reaches the surface but low energy light cannot simply pass back towards space. Even the most skeptical and stupid of people should be able to understand that at night the humid atmosphere acts like a blanket to insulate the surface from space and even the most stupid and skeptical of people should be able to realise there is a connection between clear sky dry nights and frosts or night cooling.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 7:42:18 GMT
Andrew we keep going around in circles on this. You are a true believer, I am a skeptic (read the first post link in this thread so you know the difference). You have been unable to specify the precise source of heat and demonstrate to me that that such a source of heat that is going to warm the surface above its calculated blackbody maximum. Understand carefully I get the idea of cooling potentially lending to a greenhouse effect. But I need first know how an object gets hotter in a radiation field. the whole concept of radiation heat gain and loss is temperature differentials. Hotter objects do not gain heat from colder objects. And for the basic blackbody maximum effective temperature its set by the inverse square distance law! Once at that temperature there is zero additional heat gain from the radiation field. Period end of story! So how does a planetary surface get hotter! And I am not talking a statistic like mean temperature. I mean just plain hotter than its blackbody maximum. What heats it? I am perfectly aware this is not the whole story. But it does seem to be half of it. oh p.s. The other half of it I figure could be the blockage of incoming sunlight since incoming sunlight is 50% IR. At this point then greenhouse gases are cooling. then the feedback, slowing of cooling raising the night time lows brings it back. A heated object becomes hotter when insulated. Distance from the heater is irrelevantAndrew proclaims, which of course we don't give a rats ass about. What we want to see is somebody who conducted an experiment and proved versus somebody who just imagined it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 8:10:57 GMT
A heated object becomes hotter when insulated. Distance from the heater is irrelevant Andrew proclaims, which of course we don't give a rats ass about. What we want to see is somebody who conducted an experiment and proved versus somebody who just imagined it. Hang on a minute. Are you really saying you dispute the following simple comment? Assuming the heating remains unchanged, any heated object becomes hotter when insulated. Distance from the heater is irrelevantWhat exactly is 'Andrews proclamation'??
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2016 15:28:07 GMT
Insulation works both ways. An object completely emmersed in insulation will no longer be heated as the r value overcomes the penetration of the radiation. As explained a stupid number of times so that even the most stupid of people can understand by now, the atmosphere provides a one way insulating effect because high energy light reaches the surface but low energy light cannot simply pass back towards space. Even the most skeptical and stupid of people should be able to understand that at night the humid atmosphere acts like a blanket to insulate the surface from space and even the most stupid and skeptical of people should be able to realise there is a connection between clear sky dry nights and frosts or night cooling. Andrew: You have changed the argument, as at night there is no source of external heat. Now you are talking about residual warmth, and how fast the warmth departs. In another words, how fast the object cools under different external stimuli. Is there net cooling with no external heat source? Yes there is. Does the rate of cooling differ with variable rates of H2O vapor? Yes, it does. Does CO2 affect this cooling rate? Not measurably.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 16:39:07 GMT
Andrew proclaims, which of course we don't give a rats ass about. What we want to see is somebody who conducted an experiment and proved versus somebody who just imagined it. Hang on a minute. Are you really saying you dispute the following simple comment? Assuming the heating remains unchanged, any heated object becomes hotter when insulated. Distance from the heater is irrelevantWhat exactly is 'Andrews proclamation'?? Andrew you are avoiding the issue. The issue is the whether a radiant model performs like the concentric shell model where additional heat is forced into the system by an external source (i.e. a resistant heater) and the surface of the inside shell increases in temperature by 50% or is the temperature limited to the calculated blackbody maximum. This is an important question because mean temperatures are an average of highs and lows and the insulation value of the atmosphere as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned would be cut in half if the Woods experiment is correct even considering a fulltime insulation value. Another example that suggest this is true is Mars with more CO2 above every square meter of surface than earths and whose temperature has not been detected exceeding its blackbody maximum much less an insulation enhanced one. However, worse than that Mars shows no greenhouse effect, none, zero, zilch. So what could account for that? Thats easy too. CO2 blocks incoming IR and the suns energy includes 50% IR. This incoming effect should equal the insulation value of the atmosphere if the first proposition is correct. At any rate incoming is never considered in any calculation I have seen, though I have not seen the precise mathematics in models. All I have seen are simple models produced by you and by Steve (Steve and you both provided values for the concentric ring model I drew, and Steve provided values for his existing atmosphere layered model) that do not give any consideration to either of the points I am making above. So yes Andrew insulated stuff will cool slower and affect the mean temperature. But insulated models do not raise any temperatures and the alleged greenhouse effect is 50% due to elevated temperatures. The other 50% of legitimate slowing of cooling may be offset by the fact that 50% of incoming is affected by the same greenhouse gases. So what is now sitting in front of you Andrew is a model that fully considers insulation and does not result in a change of mean temperature. However, I acknowledge that what it does is reduce maximum temperatures and raise minimum temperatures. So if you can understand what I wrote, please do not respond with "but an insulated object will cool slower and thus have a higher mean temperature because I have already given full consideration to that. The basic issue as I see it is the atmosphere is in fact not one way glass. It attenuates the same amount of sunlight coming in as your greenhouse model suggests (50%) as heat induced from backradiation.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 16:40:15 GMT
As explained a stupid number of times so that even the most stupid of people can understand by now, the atmosphere provides a one way insulating effect because high energy light reaches the surface but low energy light cannot simply pass back towards space. Even the most skeptical and stupid of people should be able to understand that at night the humid atmosphere acts like a blanket to insulate the surface from space and even the most stupid and skeptical of people should be able to realise there is a connection between clear sky dry nights and frosts or night cooling. Andrew: You have changed the argument, as at night there is no source of external heat. Now you are talking about residual warmth, and how fast the warmth departs. In another words, how fast the object cools under different external stimuli. Is there net cooling with no external heat source? Yes there is. Does the rate of cooling differ with variable rates of H2O vapor? Yes, it does. Does CO2 affect this cooling rate? Not measurably. The fact there is a heat source in a tiny area of the sky makes no difference to the argument. Radiation from the ground passes more easily from the earth when the air is dry.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 16:58:44 GMT
Andrew: You have changed the argument, as at night there is no source of external heat. Now you are talking about residual warmth, and how fast the warmth departs. In another words, how fast the object cools under different external stimuli. Is there net cooling with no external heat source? Yes there is. Does the rate of cooling differ with variable rates of H2O vapor? Yes, it does. Does CO2 affect this cooling rate? Not measurably. The fact there is a heat source in a tiny area of the sky makes no difference to the argument. Radiation from the ground passes more easily from the earth when the air is dry. the daytime insulation may not matter because the surface temperature is at the "maximum" value throughout the day. That would be the blackbody maximum as modified by the angle of the surface to the sun. In other words when the sun is not directly overhead, the blackbody maximum is lower based upon spreading that maximum over a larger surface area due to the surface being tilted.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2016 17:17:21 GMT
Andrew: You have changed the argument, as at night there is no source of external heat. Now you are talking about residual warmth, and how fast the warmth departs. In another words, how fast the object cools under different external stimuli. Is there net cooling with no external heat source? Yes there is. Does the rate of cooling differ with variable rates of H2O vapor? Yes, it does. Does CO2 affect this cooling rate? Not measurably. The fact there is a heat source in a tiny area of the sky makes no difference to the argument. Radiation from the ground passes more easily from the earth when the air is dry. The fact that there is, or is not, a heat source makes all the difference. 1. IF there is a heat source, the object will warm if the radiation absorption rate exceeds the radiation expression rate. 2. With NO heat source, the object is going to cool. The said rate of cooling depends on the "R" value of the insulation. H2O vapor is a very effective retarder of the rate of cooling because it actually "holds" heat. CO2 does NOT hold heat. A huge difference based on actual physics.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 20:27:15 GMT
The fact there is a heat source in a tiny area of the sky makes no difference to the argument. Radiation from the ground passes more easily from the earth when the air is dry. The fact that there is, or is not, a heat source makes all the difference. 1. IF there is a heat source, the object will warm if the radiation absorption rate exceeds the radiation expression rate. 2. With NO heat source, the object is going to cool. The said rate of cooling depends on the "R" value of the insulation. H2O vapor is a very effective retarder of the rate of cooling because it actually "holds" heat. CO2 does NOT hold heat. A huge difference based on actual physics. There is no difference of substance. In both cases you get a higher temperature when water vapour is present because the rate of cooling is reduced.
|
|