|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 20:31:26 GMT
2. The Greenhouse idea, when it refers to our atmosphere, does not work. CO2 does NOT hold heat, nor cold. I suspect you might be creating some meaning from CO2 not holding heat. I am sure you do realise that CO2 does hold heat - I am assuming you realise if it hotter than absolute zero then it is holding heat. So since the wording is a bit odd, I am suspecting you might not understand the greenhouse idea at all because i cannot see any connection between the first part of the text about it not working and the CO2 comment. I am guessing you think the greenhouse idea is something to do with trapped/saved heat in the atmosphere? Not a very good guesser Andrew. You will note that I stated the idea of a "greenhouse" was presented so folks who are not scientifically literate "may" have a rude grasp of how the atmosphere works.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 20:32:22 GMT
On another note, our atmosphere is not like insulation as well.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 20:33:21 GMT
I suspect you might be creating some meaning from CO2 not holding heat. I am sure you do realise that CO2 does hold heat - I am assuming you realise if it hotter than absolute zero then it is holding heat. So since the wording is a bit odd, I am suspecting you might not understand the greenhouse idea at all because i cannot see any connection between the first part of the text about it not working and the CO2 comment. I agree Andrew that you are 100% technically correct. CO2 is above absolute zero, so it does hold heat. However, compared to H20 vapor, it does not hold any heat of consequence. OK so what point are you making? How does water being able to transfer heat from the surface by evaporation create meaning for your sentence that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere does not work??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 20:35:34 GMT
I suspect you might be creating some meaning from CO2 not holding heat. I am sure you do realise that CO2 does hold heat - I am assuming you realise if it hotter than absolute zero then it is holding heat. So since the wording is a bit odd, I am suspecting you might not understand the greenhouse idea at all because i cannot see any connection between the first part of the text about it not working and the CO2 comment. I am guessing you think the greenhouse idea is something to do with trapped/saved heat in the atmosphere? Not a very good guesser Andrew. You will note that I stated the idea of a "greenhouse" was presented so folks who are not scientifically literate "may" have a rude grasp of how the atmosphere works. I am supposing that your comment that you regard yourself as being very far from stupid makes it hard for you to admit mistakes and makes you a bit stubborn. Being a bit 'stupid' can be an advantage when we want to learn from others.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 20:56:02 GMT
Bullshit. You claimed an IR camera cannot detect the IR radiation absorbed on the detector unless electronic trickery is used. You told me I needed to understand some things Well a few years ago I inspected the engineering for a non-cooled bolometer. It uses some electronic trickery to select a flow of heat either into or out of the meter in a rather ingenuous way. Of course it would be expected that people not inspecting the circuitry to jump to a conclusion about what had been achieved by the original sensor through simply making it more sensitive. Yes they are more sensitive meaning they are more accurate and detect smaller flows of energy. And in response to Maxwells experiment you began talking in tongues. >>The experiment you referred me to was two hot flames of different colors one hotter than the other. The fact that you can see the cooler light through the flame of the hot light is not evidence that the hot flame has absorbed the photons from the colder light it only proves that a flame does not block the flow of photons to your eye a completely plausible concept that has not occurred to you. 5 minutes later you were claiming you were not saying your cold light theory was the truth. It is just an idea and in response to the idea you have some need to overturn the science of the last 200 years. Then you pretend I have the problem Its been quite some time since I read the Maxwell experiment you posted a few years ago. Since I don't have a link to it I have rely on my recollections. If you post it perhaps I can be a bit more succinct. What the f**k were you talking about with the distance from the Sun??? >>the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by Not? As you can see the Net Radiation curve of the Engineering Toolbox does not cover the topic of distance. So since you are claiming a warming effect and I am questioning it please provide a reference that supports your claim. Non cooled bolometers do not require electronic trickery. The detector must absorb the radiation first regardless of the type of detector or circuit. Earlier you demonstrated your ability to repeat crap by claiming i did not understand the detector and now you just repeat the same baloney. I provided a reference which shows you are full of it. Your own reference did not show any electronic trickery - the ir had to be absorbed before anything happened.The Sun can cause a 93C temperature on the surface. How in Gods name do you suppose a 20C temperature cannot be raised to 21C by the heating sun? ??
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 21:53:45 GMT
Not a very good guesser Andrew. You will note that I stated the idea of a "greenhouse" was presented so folks who are not scientifically literate "may" have a rude grasp of how the atmosphere works. I am supposing that your comment that you regard yourself as being very far from stupid makes it hard for you to admit mistakes and makes you a bit stubborn. Being a bit 'stupid' can be an advantage when we want to learn from others. Andrew: Actually, being far from stupid enhances the ability to learn from others. One gets an enhanced ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 21:57:26 GMT
Non cooled bolometers do not require electronic trickery. The detector must absorb the radiation first regardless of the type of detector or circuit. Earlier you demonstrated your ability to repeat crap by claiming i did not understand the detector and now you just repeat the same baloney. I provided a reference which shows you are full of it. Your own reference did not show any electronic trickery - the ir had to be absorbed before anything happened.The Sun can cause a 93C temperature on the surface. How the f**k do you suppose a 20C temperature cannot be raised to 21C by the heating sun? ?? Again a reading problem on your part. I said that the engineering of the bolometer I examined (the only one I examined and I make no claim it is the only one in the world) did not read radiation coming from the object it was pointed at when and only when the object the detector was being pointed at was colder than the sensor in the detector. The wizardry of the device was in such instances it instead read the radiation leaving the device and going out of the detector (from an emitter) back to the cold object. I don't recall all the details but it was some kind of prismatic device that simultaneously read both an emitter in the detector and any radiation it could detect coming from the object. Since the sensor in the detector can only detect radiation coming from objects warmer than the sensor obviously the sensor could only detect one flow of energy and its electronic circuitry could identify the source as well so it could compute the temperature differential and its sign. Now that is how that detector worked and was able to detect the temperature of cold objects. I don't know if any photons travel from cold objects to warm objects. I just have never seen any evidence of such. Now if you know of a detector that does it other than the design I am talking about then be my guest to submit a paper detailing how it works.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 21:58:13 GMT
I agree Andrew that you are 100% technically correct. CO2 is above absolute zero, so it does hold heat. However, compared to H20 vapor, it does not hold any heat of consequence. OK so what point are you making? How does water being able to transfer heat from the surface by evaporation create meaning for your sentence that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere does not work?? There is NO greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Come on..........science ok? H2O vapor has the property to ACTUALLY hold heat. It will not only distribute heat, but its properties allow it to deviate in temperature, affecting the surroundings by convection as well as radiation reflections and absorption. When you take the greenhouse cover off, the greenhouse then acts like an atmosphere. The cover of a greenhouse doesn't have enough mass to effect the temperature of a greenhouse. It is simply a trapping mechanism. Our atmosphere has NO cover, and it DOES have mass.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 22:05:16 GMT
OK so what point are you making? How does water being able to transfer heat from the surface by evaporation create meaning for your sentence that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere does not work?? There is NO greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Come on..........science ok? H2O vapor has the property to ACTUALLY hold heat. It will not only distribute heat, but its properties allow it to deviate in temperature, affecting the surroundings by convection as well as radiation reflections and absorption. When you take the greenhouse cover off, the greenhouse then acts like an atmosphere. The cover of a greenhouse doesn't have enough mass to effect the temperature of a greenhouse. It is simply a trapping mechanism. Our atmosphere has NO cover, and it DOES have mass. I have totally no idea what you are talking about. the greenhouse effect idea is a very simple idea. If you want to reject that idea you have to make some reference to it rather than talk about things which are apparently totally unrelated to the idea. what the f**k are you talking about with the following??? When you take the greenhouse cover off, the greenhouse then acts like an atmosphere.
The cover of a greenhouse doesn't have enough mass to effect the temperature of a greenhouse. It is simply a trapping mechanism.
Our atmosphere has NO cover, and it DOES have mass.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 22:09:37 GMT
Non cooled bolometers do not require electronic trickery. The detector must absorb the radiation first regardless of the type of detector or circuit. Earlier you demonstrated your ability to repeat crap by claiming i did not understand the detector and now you just repeat the same baloney. I provided a reference which shows you are full of it. Your own reference did not show any electronic trickery - the ir had to be absorbed before anything happened.The Sun can cause a 93C temperature on the surface. How the f**k do you suppose a 20C temperature cannot be raised to 21C by the heating sun? ?? Again a reading problem on your part. I said that the engineering of the bolometer I examined (the only one I examined and I make no claim it is the only one in the world) did not read radiation coming from the object it was pointed at when and only when the object the detector was being pointed at was colder than the sensor in the detector. The wizardry of the device was in such instances it instead read the radiation leaving the device and going out of the detector (from an emitter) back to the cold object. I don't recall all the details but it was some kind of prismatic device that simultaneously read both an emitter in the detector and any radiation it could detect coming from the object. Since the sensor in the detector can only detect radiation coming from objects warmer than the sensor obviously the sensor could only detect one flow of energy and its electronic circuitry could identify the source as well so it could compute the temperature differential and its sign. Now that is how that detector worked and was able to detect the temperature of cold objects. I don't know if any photons travel from cold objects to warm objects. I just have never seen any evidence of such. Now if you know of a detector that does it other than the design I am talking about then be my guest to submit a paper detailing how it works. Man you are dumb. I even realised later your astronomical bolometer link was referring to superconducting bolometer detectors operating at 4k or under 1K bolo.berkeley.edu/bolometers/introduction.htmlYou need to read and understand what is going on there. The purpose of the "heat reservoir" is to demonstrate the electrical effect in the resister when the warm unit is focused on a cold object. Then there is your latest Maxwell gaff
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 22:31:46 GMT
I take that to mean that you don't want to take a shot at explaining how the Maxwell link you posted proves the existence of a flow of photons from cold objects to warm objects any longer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 22:37:52 GMT
I take that to mean that you don't want to take a shot at explaining how the Maxwell link you posted proves the existence of a flow of photons from cold objects to warm objects any longer. What do you mean? So far I have only demonstrated you have a reading problem. Maxwells experiment needs an explanation however.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2016 0:02:22 GMT
There is NO greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Come on..........science ok? H2O vapor has the property to ACTUALLY hold heat. It will not only distribute heat, but its properties allow it to deviate in temperature, affecting the surroundings by convection as well as radiation reflections and absorption. When you take the greenhouse cover off, the greenhouse then acts like an atmosphere. The cover of a greenhouse doesn't have enough mass to effect the temperature of a greenhouse. It is simply a trapping mechanism. Our atmosphere has NO cover, and it DOES have mass. I have totally no idea what you are talking about. the greenhouse effect idea is a very simple idea. If you want to reject that idea you have to make some reference to it rather than talk about things which are apparently totally unrelated to the idea. what the f**k are you talking about with the following??? When you take the greenhouse cover off, the greenhouse then acts like an atmosphere.
The cover of a greenhouse doesn't have enough mass to effect the temperature of a greenhouse. It is simply a trapping mechanism.
Our atmosphere has NO cover, and it DOES have mass.
Andrew: I would hope you know what I am talking about. It is elementary.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2016 1:34:33 GMT
Code: The higher the pressure, the greater the heat.
The jacket has a shell.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 19, 2016 6:03:48 GMT
I have totally no idea what you are talking about. the greenhouse effect idea is a very simple idea. If you want to reject that idea you have to make some reference to it rather than talk about things which are apparently totally unrelated to the idea. what the f**k are you talking about with the following??? When you take the greenhouse cover off, the greenhouse then acts like an atmosphere.
The cover of a greenhouse doesn't have enough mass to effect the temperature of a greenhouse. It is simply a trapping mechanism.
Our atmosphere has NO cover, and it DOES have mass.
Andrew: I would hope you know what I am talking about. It is elementary. Stop talking in tongues and spit it out! What are you blathering about now??
|
|