|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 6:18:31 GMT
Q. What kind of a dumb f**k argues the radiative insulating properties of double glazing only work if there are no changes in temperature? A. His almighty highness his most esteemed incredibleness Icefisher. The all knowing all seeing wonder boy single glazing blocks free diffusion of gasses, creates reflectivity, and provides a very nominal amount of insulation (r=1) double glazing doubles all those effects r=2. Double glazing with coatings that provide enhanced reflectivity and reduced emissivity, and filling the voids with gasses with higher thermal resistance can increase those values up to around R=3. So what is your point? Even in America, radiation flows across the gap.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 18:19:13 GMT
single glazing blocks free diffusion of gasses, creates reflectivity, and provides a very nominal amount of insulation (r=1) double glazing doubles all those effects r=2. Double glazing with coatings that provide enhanced reflectivity and reduced emissivity, and filling the voids with gasses with higher thermal resistance can increase those values up to around R=3. So what is your point? Even in America, radiation flows across the gap. The keyword is "flows" and ensuring you find all the flows rather than fixate on one flow you will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 18:34:05 GMT
Even in America, radiation flows across the gap. The keyword is "flows" and ensuring you find all the flows rather than fixate on one flow you will be fine. You were the wally arguing for only one radiation flow and I am supposing you remain the wally arguing for only one radiation flow
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 18:47:22 GMT
Even in America, radiation flows across the gap. The keyword is "flows" and ensuring you find all the flows rather than fixate on one flow you will be fine. Not in my dictionary Andrew: (of a fluid, gas, or electricity) move along or out steadily and continuously in a current or stream. "from here the river flows north" synonyms: run, course, glide, drift, circulate; More 2. go from one place to another in a steady stream, typically in large numbers. "the firm is hoping the orders will keep flowing in" noun 1. the action or fact of moving along in a steady, continuous stream. "the flow of water into the pond" 2. a steady, continuous stream of something. "she eased the car into the flow of traffic" synonyms: movement, motion, current, flux, circulation; More
Flows run in one direction in the same space. You can have counter flows but not in the same space, by definition. You can get caught up in a current and flows can be slowed but one needs to verify if they have been slowed or whether you have not accounted for the flow going out of a hole someplace else. The point is the flow energy from one surface to another is dedicated to warming the receiving surface at the rate established by radiation laws and other physics such as the field of view. Radiation that misses the object is not slowed obviously and any heat losses from the warming surface have to filled. If those heat losses do not ultimately come from the hot object Andrew please entertain us with the answer of where the fuk you think it comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 19:33:27 GMT
The keyword is "flows" and ensuring you find all the flows rather than fixate on one flow you will be fine. Not in my dictionary Andrew: (of a fluid, gas, or electricity) move along or out steadily and continuously in a current or stream. "from here the river flows north" synonyms: run, course, glide, drift, circulate; More 2. go from one place to another in a steady stream, typically in large numbers. "the firm is hoping the orders will keep flowing in" noun 1. the action or fact of moving along in a steady, continuous stream. "the flow of water into the pond" 2. a steady, continuous stream of something. "she eased the car into the flow of traffic" synonyms: movement, motion, current, flux, circulation; More
Flows run in one direction in the same space. You can have counter flows but not in the same space, by definition. You can get caught up in a current and flows can be slowed but one needs to verify if they have been slowed or whether you have not accounted for the flow going out of a hole someplace else. The point is the flow energy from one surface to another is dedicated to warming the receiving surface at the rate established by radiation laws and other physics such as the field of view. Radiation that misses the object is not slowed obviously and any heat losses from the warming surface have to filled. If those heat losses do not ultimately come from the hot object Andrew please entertain us with the answer of where the fuk you think it comes from. Heat is being lost. Something that should be obvious to even a total f**ktard like you. Q. What kind of a dumb f**k argues the radiative insulating properties of double glazing only work if there are no changes in temperature? A. His almighty highness his most esteemed incredibleness Icefisher. The all knowing all seeing wonder boy
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 20:19:56 GMT
Heat is being lost. Something that should be obvious to even a total f**ktard like you. Q. What kind of a dumb f**k argues the radiative insulating properties of double glazing only work if there are no changes in temperature? A. His almighty highness his most esteemed incredibleness Icefisher. The all knowing all seeing wonder b Heat is being lost, even in your diagram, which you do account for by assuming a steady state relationship (ratio) between the surface of the earth and the surface of the greenhouse gas whereby the two surfaces fail to converge to an equilibrium temperature by the exact amount necessary to account for the heating loss. You assume a steady state ratio between the gas and the surface at one half what the general rule requires of the two surfaces to converge to the same temperature. . . .which if it happens or not is fully dependent upon field of view which in the case of a round object contained in another round object of earthly/atmospheric proportions happens to be very close to 100% and not anywhere near close to the 50% you assume. Its a totally mathematically constructed field of view to fit your world view. It is a view that does not stand up to being true in any observation nor any applied thermodynamic engineering project I am aware of. . . .the Woods experiment for example. It appears to be entirely an imagined invention that violates the general rule of objects in a field of view of unity warming via radiation to an equilibrium.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 20:37:55 GMT
Heat is being lost. Something that should be obvious to even a total f**ktard like you. Q. What kind of a dumb f**k argues the radiative insulating properties of double glazing only work if there are no changes in temperature? A. His almighty highness his most esteemed incredibleness Icefisher. The all knowing all seeing wonder b Heat is being lost, even in your diagram, which you do account for by assuming a steady state relationship (ratio) between the surface of the earth and the surface of the greenhouse gas whereby the two surfaces fail to converge to an equilibrium temperature by the exact amount necessary to account for the heating loss. You assume a steady state ratio between the gas and the surface at one half what the general rule requires of the two surfaces to converge to the same temperature. . . .which if it happens or not is fully dependent upon field of view which in the case of a round object contained in another round object of earthly/atmospheric proportions happens to be very close to 100% and not anywhere near close to the 50% you assume. Its a totally mathematically constructed field of view to fit your world view. It is a view that does not stand up to being true in any observation nor any applied thermodynamic engineering project I am aware of. . . .the Woods experiment for example. It appears to be entirely an imagined invention that violates the general rule of objects in a field of view of unity warming via radiation to an equilibrium. I totally have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. What is a steady state ratio? You cannot have thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere of the earth when objects are being heated or if they are being cooled. >>violates the general rule of objects in a field of view of unity warming via radiation to an equilibrium. You cannot 'heat an object to equilibrium'. All you can do is simultaneously heat one object and cool another object. For example a hot iron in a bucket of water when insulated will achieve thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium has a particular meaning. if you heat an object to a constant temperature that is what is called a steady state which is not a thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is also a steady state. It will not take you long to learn to use these terms correctly. There are plenty of online resources.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 21:03:05 GMT
the general rule of objects in a field of view of unity warming via radiation to an equilibrium. If you begin pouring water into an empty bucket and do so until the water level overflows and can rise no further you have achieved a steady state. The following picture does not show equilibrium This does
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 22:33:31 GMT
I totally have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. What is a steady state ratio? Steady state "ratios" only apply to thought experiments. Obviously you cannot get a real steady state in a thought experiment and you cannot create a real steady state in a statistic. So think of steady state ratio as being a "statistic" like "mean". And once you have absorbed that idea, if possible, go back to the original comment which would be redundant to reprint here.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 23:00:36 GMT
You cannot have thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere of the earth when objects are being heated or if they are being cooled. The system is not in equilibrium Andrew. What is in equilibrium is the temperature of the two objects. I am fully aware that is not a radiant equilibrium its merely a temperature equilibrium. You might want to start by reading this: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.htmlThis is part of IPCC AR4 and discusses a single use of the term "equilibrium" in an atmosphere that is constantly being heated and being cooled. So if you dislike me using the term in a common manner as obviously climate scientists are doing you might want to take your point up with them first. If they agree a different term should be used and/or invented then fine. In the meantime you might try a little harder to stretch your skinny mind around it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 23:39:44 GMT
the general rule of objects in a field of view of unity warming via radiation to an equilibrium. If you begin pouring water into an empty bucket and do so until the water level overflows and can rise no further you have achieved a steady state. The following picture does not show equilibrium This does Your diagram really does not fit the bill because the idea is to not overfill the bucket but instead just to keep it full if it has a hole in the bottom. Radiative equilibrium occurs no matter how much insulation you have when the temperature of the two objects are the same. We are talking analogies here. The overflowing bucket in if applied to radiation would stop the heat loss from the warmer system. And of course with radiation a half full bucket would slow the heat to half speed. But a half full bucket with a hole in the bottom would only slow that heat transfer to half speed as long as the bucket stays half full which now requires an extra flow of heat to maintain. So the flow is now 50% of SB flow plus the heat loss from the cool surface. The only way for that cool object heat loss to not do that is if there is an additional flow of energy from someplace else. The IPCC explanation falls short of actually quantitatively how the differences in lapse rates are actually achieved or if in fact the lapse rate does change for that matter. We know the lapse rate does change from adding or subtracting moisture in the atmosphere but I don't see the IPCC pointing or referring to anything but model assumptions for the change in their lapse rate. The whole spiel really only says "were on it" and "we are confident that we will root out the answer soon".
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 28, 2016 3:58:42 GMT
I totally have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. What is a steady state ratio? Steady state "ratios" only apply to thought experiments. Obviously you cannot get a real steady state in a thought experiment and you cannot create a real steady state in a statistic. So think of steady state ratio as being a "statistic" like "mean". And once you have absorbed that idea, if possible, go back to the original comment which would be redundant to reprint here. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please define what you mean by your use of - steady state "ratio"A steady state is what happens when changes are applied to any system and after a period of time there are no further changes. So "steady state" equates to "unchanging system" How can you have "unchanging system" ratios???
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 28, 2016 4:03:41 GMT
You cannot have thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere of the earth when objects are being heated or if they are being cooled. The system is not in equilibrium Andrew. What is in equilibrium is the temperature of the two objects. I am fully aware that is not a radiant equilibrium its merely a temperature equilibrium. I am totally non the wiser. Which two objects have the same temperature? What is a temperature equilibrium? Are you talking about thermal equilibrium when the temperature of objects is the same? You say the system is not in equilibrium.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 28, 2016 4:07:56 GMT
We are talking analogies here. The overflowing bucket in if applied to radiation would stop the heat loss from the warmer system. And of course with radiation a half full bucket would slow the heat to half speed. But a half full bucket with a hole in the bottom would only slow that heat transfer to half speed as long as the bucket stays half full which now requires an extra flow of heat to maintain. So the flow is now 50% of SB flow plus the heat loss from the cool surface. The only way for that cool object heat loss to not do that is if there is an additional flow of energy from someplace else. An analogy to what? What are you talking about?? I have totally no idea what that text is supposed to be describing to me
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 28, 2016 4:30:55 GMT
|
|