|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 20:49:37 GMT
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. Andrew waves his arm and all equations are solved without showing any of them. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 21:00:48 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 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. I have no idea what you are talking about. The blackbody surface maximum for the Earth with an atmosphere is almost exactly the same as the highest surface temperature ever recorded on Earth of 93C at Death Valley. For the same amount of heating any heated object gets hotter when insulated.The moons day time temperature is 30C higher than the highest temperature ever found on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2016 21:18:41 GMT
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. Andrew waves his arm and all equations are solved without showing any of them. LOL! So says the spineless turd who has never produced any calculations in support of his endless hand waving and had to get me to do them for him.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2016 22:15:32 GMT
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. I have no idea what you are talking about. The blackbody surface maximum for the Earth with an atmosphere is almost exactly the same as the highest surface temperature ever recorded on Earth of 93C at Death Valley. For the same amount of heating any heated object gets hotter when insulated.The moons day time temperature is 30C higher than the highest temperature ever found on Earth. In conclusion, the moon is well insulated then being it gets hotter than the highest temperature ever found on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 22:21:23 GMT
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. I have no idea what you are talking about. The blackbody surface maximum for the Earth with an atmosphere is almost exactly the same as the highest surface temperature ever recorded on Earth of 93C at Death Valley. For the same amount of heating any heated object gets hotter when insulated.The moons day time temperature is 30C higher than the highest temperature ever found on Earth. 1) the record temperature for Death Valley is 134F or 56.7C 2) the blackbody maximum for a 1366watt sun is 121C on earths mean orbit. So you are not making an sense or progress with your bad calculations and statistics. The moon gets hotter because its maximum temperature is its blackbody maximum because it has not atmosphere blocking the radiation like the earth does and the difference is huge it is believed the hottest temperature recorded on earth was about 70C in northern Africa, but that still 50C cooler than the moon's hottest temperature (without a greenhouse effect).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 22:33:17 GMT
Andrew waves his arm and all equations are solved without showing any of them. LOL! So says the spineless turd who has never produced any calculations in support of his endless hand waving and had to get me to do them for him. Of course I needed you to do the calculations as I needed for you to show me how you calculated your mythical greenhouse effect. There is no way for me to determine what you imagine otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2016 5:08:38 GMT
I have no idea what you are talking about. The blackbody surface maximum for the Earth with an atmosphere is almost exactly the same as the highest surface temperature ever recorded on Earth of 93C at Death Valley. For the same amount of heating any heated object gets hotter when insulated.The moons day time temperature is 30C higher than the highest temperature ever found on Earth. 1) the record temperature for Death Valley is 134F or 56.7C 2) the blackbody maximum for a 1366watt sun is 121C on earths mean orbit. So you are not making an sense or progress with your bad calculations and statistics. The moon gets hotter because its maximum temperature is its blackbody maximum because it has not atmosphere blocking the radiation like the earth does and the difference is huge it is believed the hottest temperature recorded on earth was about 70C in northern Africa, but that still 50C cooler than the moon's hottest temperature (without a greenhouse effect). your 2 is produced from a top of atmosphere insolation. Your 1 is the official air temperature. I was talking about the surface of the Earth where the highest temperature ever recorded is about 92C So your royal highness how about you explain what the f**k you are talking about? If the earths surface can rise to 92C how the f**k can the temperature be limited by the garbage you have so far spouted? Earths typical temperatures are much lower than black body maximums. What the f**k are you talking about? 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. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2016 5:32:13 GMT
1) the record temperature for Death Valley is 134F or 56.7C 2) the blackbody maximum for a 1366watt sun is 121C on earths mean orbit. So you are not making an sense or progress with your bad calculations and statistics. The moon gets hotter because its maximum temperature is its blackbody maximum because it has not atmosphere blocking the radiation like the earth does and the difference is huge it is believed the hottest temperature recorded on earth was about 70C in northern Africa, but that still 50C cooler than the moon's hottest temperature (without a greenhouse effect). your 2 is produced from a top of atmosphere insolation. Your 1 is the official air temperature. I was talking about the surface of the Earth where the highest temperature ever recorded is about 92C So your royal highness how about you explain what the f**k you are talking about? If the earths surface can rise to 92C how the f**k can the temperature be limited by the garbage you have so far spouted? Earths typical temperatures are much lower than black body maximums. What the f**k are you talking about? How come even the simplest of ideas is totally beyond you? ? You need some documentation on that 92C because thats almost boiling far beyond where any human could survive. But since you are apparently talking about "true" surface temperature thats brings up another important point since that temperature is 38C higher than what we measure with our near surface atmospheric weather stations it calls into question the accuracy of using a surface black body calculation then measure air temperature and not the true surface. But at any rate. . . .even it were 92C that would be indicative of 26% of the solar light being intercepted by the atmosphere. 92C has a radiant emittance of 1006 watts and the sun has at the distance of the earth a 1366watt radiant emittance. So the atmosphere has absorbed approximately 360watts of incoming radiation and thats figuring zero warming radiation from the greenhouse effect.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2016 5:53:13 GMT
your 2 is produced from a top of atmosphere insolation. Your 1 is the official air temperature. I was talking about the surface of the Earth where the highest temperature ever recorded is about 92C So your royal highness how about you explain what the f**k you are talking about? If the earths surface can rise to 92C how the f**k can the temperature be limited by the garbage you have so far spouted? Earths typical temperatures are much lower than black body maximums. What the f**k are you talking about? How come even the simplest of ideas is totally beyond you? ? You need some documentation on that 92C because thats almost boiling far beyond where any human could survive. But since you are apparently talking about "true" surface temperature thats brings up another important point since that temperature is 38C higher than what we measure with our near surface atmospheric weather stations it calls into question the accuracy of using a surface black body calculation then measure air temperature and not the true surface. But at any rate. . . .even it were 92C that would be indicative of 26% of the solar light being intercepted by the atmosphere. 92C has a radiant emittance of 1006 watts and the sun has at the distance of the earth a 1366watt radiant emittance. So the atmosphere has absorbed approximately 360watts of incoming radiation and thats figuring zero warming radiation from the greenhouse effect. How many pages of this must be endured before I find out what creates the ideas in your mind? If you apply one watt of heating to an object and then insulate it totally it will be forced to rise to the temperature of the heater. The distance from the object is totally irrelevant just one watt of heating can force the object to rise to the temperature of the heater if the object is well insulated. If you are disputing this we have the basis for a multi thousand dollar wager where both of us are required to put our money where our big mouths are. I think you are a retarded f**kwit. Evidently you think you are the big shot on the block here. How about you put up or shut up? After 4 years of this you should be able to explain what the f**k you are talking about so it can be understood by somebody with a science background.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2016 6:00:16 GMT
You need some documentation on that 92C because thats almost boiling far beyond where any human could survive. But since you are apparently talking about "true" surface temperature thats brings up another important point since that temperature is 38C higher than what we measure with our near surface atmospheric weather stations it calls into question the accuracy of using a surface black body calculation then measure air temperature and not the true surface. But at any rate. . . .even it were 92C that would be indicative of 26% of the solar light being intercepted by the atmosphere. 92C has a radiant emittance of 1006 watts and the sun has at the distance of the earth a 1366watt radiant emittance. So the atmosphere has absorbed approximately 360watts of incoming radiation and thats figuring zero warming radiation from the greenhouse effect. How many pages of this must be endured before I find out what creates the ideas in your mind? If you apply one watt of heating to an object and then insulate it totally it will be forced to rise to the temperature of the heater. The distance from the object is totally irrelevant just one watt of heating can force the object to rise to the temperature of the heater if the object is well insulated. If you are disputing this we have the basis for a multi thousand dollar wager where both of us are required to put our money where our big mouths are. I think you are a retarded f**kwit. Evidently you think you are the big shot on the block here. How about you put up or shut up? I guess stuff just passes from ear to ear through your head. This thread starts out with a description of a true skeptic Andrew. I have pointed that out to you more than once but it apparently finds no gray matter while transiting your head. You are the true believer so why don't you put up and redo the Woods experiment to fix anything that was wrong with it. At this point in time that stands as the best proof available that what you way above is not correct.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2016 6:04:00 GMT
How many pages of this must be endured before I find out what creates the ideas in your mind? If you apply one watt of heating to an object and then insulate it totally it will be forced to rise to the temperature of the heater. The distance from the object is totally irrelevant just one watt of heating can force the object to rise to the temperature of the heater if the object is well insulated. If you are disputing this we have the basis for a multi thousand dollar wager where both of us are required to put our money where our big mouths are. I think you are a retarded f**kwit. Evidently you think you are the big shot on the block here. How about you put up or shut up?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2016 6:11:52 GMT
I have no idea what you are talking about. 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. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2016 20:10:27 GMT
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about. Andrew its not gibberish. The skepticism I hold is completely consistent with Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009. I think it is important understand that Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009 is an essay specifying that there is nothing in physics to support the one way glass/heat gain theories for CO2. That notion remains undisputed. The central tenet of their notion is that insulation value and absorption are not equivalents. I don't think that G&T is the end all be all in the matter. I am merely convinced that its not known physics that supports a greenhouse effect of any significance from CO2. I think the Woods experiment reinforces that notion as well but I can also see that the Woods experiment could be improved upon to make it more certain. I am perfectly attuned to the weakness of Woods in ignoring conduction through the glass but I can't fail to note that the alleged equivalency of absorption and insulation ignores conduction as well. It is abundantly clear to me that math and theory are not adequate to establish the greenhouse theory as a greenhouse law. Only Physics Royalty can do that by fiat, albeit without the "law" label, and for the most part has done that. Of course they also mollified the masses by defining feedback as all inclusive including primary effects. It seems obvious that a repeat of the Woods experiment that controlled transparency and conduction as well as convection could be convincing. I am also aware that the Physics Royalty has no great motivation to do that any more than the Pope had in listening to Galileo and the theories of Copernicus and for the same reasons. So you can continue your endless stream of ad hominems and insults as long as you realize they don't add anything to the discussion and you for whatever reason have chosen that course as opposed to actually offering anything that has not be considered a thousand times if not millions of times.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2016 21:28:38 GMT
You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about. Andrew its not gibberish. The skepticism I hold is completely consistent with Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009. I think it is important understand that Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009 is an essay specifying that there is nothing in physics to support the one way glass/heat gain theories for CO2. That notion remains undisputed. The central tenet of their notion is that insulation value and absorption are not equivalents. I don't think that G&T is the end all be all in the matter. I am merely convinced that its not known physics that supports a greenhouse effect of any significance from CO2. I think the Woods experiment reinforces that notion as well but I can also see that the Woods experiment could be improved upon to make it more certain. I am perfectly attuned to the weakness of Woods in ignoring conduction through the glass but I can't fail to note that the alleged equivalency of absorption and insulation ignores conduction as well. It is abundantly clear to me that math and theory are not adequate to establish the greenhouse theory as a greenhouse law. Only Physics Royalty can do that by fiat, albeit without the "law" label, and for the most part has done that. Of course they also mollified the masses by defining feedback as all inclusive including primary effects. It seems obvious that a repeat of the Woods experiment that controlled transparency and conduction as well as convection could be convincing. I am also aware that the Physics Royalty has no great motivation to do that any more than the Pope had in listening to Galileo and the theories of Copernicus and for the same reasons. So you can continue your endless stream of ad hominems and insults as long as you realize they don't add anything to the discussion and you for whatever reason have chosen that course as opposed to actually offering anything that has not be considered a thousand times if not millions of times. So now it is back to G and T, the morons who had never heard of engineers heating curves.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2016 22:25:58 GMT
Andrew its not gibberish. The skepticism I hold is completely consistent with Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009. I think it is important understand that Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009 is an essay specifying that there is nothing in physics to support the one way glass/heat gain theories for CO2. That notion remains undisputed. The central tenet of their notion is that insulation value and absorption are not equivalents. I don't think that G&T is the end all be all in the matter. I am merely convinced that its not known physics that supports a greenhouse effect of any significance from CO2. I think the Woods experiment reinforces that notion as well but I can also see that the Woods experiment could be improved upon to make it more certain. I am perfectly attuned to the weakness of Woods in ignoring conduction through the glass but I can't fail to note that the alleged equivalency of absorption and insulation ignores conduction as well. It is abundantly clear to me that math and theory are not adequate to establish the greenhouse theory as a greenhouse law. Only Physics Royalty can do that by fiat, albeit without the "law" label, and for the most part has done that. Of course they also mollified the masses by defining feedback as all inclusive including primary effects. It seems obvious that a repeat of the Woods experiment that controlled transparency and conduction as well as convection could be convincing. I am also aware that the Physics Royalty has no great motivation to do that any more than the Pope had in listening to Galileo and the theories of Copernicus and for the same reasons. So you can continue your endless stream of ad hominems and insults as long as you realize they don't add anything to the discussion and you for whatever reason have chosen that course as opposed to actually offering anything that has not be considered a thousand times if not millions of times. So now it is back to G and T, the morons who had never heard of engineers heating curves. Is that your best?
|
|