|
Post by icefisher on Jan 28, 2016 4:53:41 GMT
Take it up with them Andrew. Write them one of your letters and tell them how stupid they are.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 28, 2016 5:02:07 GMT
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. Please write that text without using the term 'steady state'. Please find another way to express what you mean. >>the two surfaces fail to converge to an equilibrium temperature The handle of a saucepan heated by a hot plate "fails to converge to an equilibrium temperature". Likewise the saucepan "fails to converge to an equilibrium temperature" >>the two surfaces fail to converge to an equilibrium temperature by the exact amount necessary to account for the heating loss What is your meaning? What are you wanting to say about the heated object?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 28, 2016 21:42:03 GMT
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. Please write that text without using the term 'steady state'. Please find another way to express what you mean. >>the two surfaces fail to converge to an equilibrium temperature The handle of a saucepan heated by a hot plate "fails to converge to an equilibrium temperature". Likewise the saucepan "fails to converge to an equilibrium temperature" >>the two surfaces fail to converge to an equilibrium temperature by the exact amount necessary to account for the heating loss What is your meaning? What are you wanting to say about the heated object? It seems you want to explain it to you. But the truth is explaining nothing is just like explaining nothing. Fact is one can never prove the non-existence of God. It seem in all my searching I have never found anything that supports the idea of backradiation warming anything except in mathematical models. Of course thats just pure numerology. Numerology definition: Numerology is any belief in the divine, mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events.[1] It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.Of course the mathematical model isn't just a randomly chosen number. Its displayed in an elegant mathematical formula, its support for its existence is not really any different than the most popular alleged proof of the existence of God, namely the "Invisible Gardener" argument that the world could not be such a splendid place unless under the design direction of an almighty architect. So if you don't mind I have not seen any example of warming carried out in a purely radiative atmosphere, nor a gaseous atmosphere. You seem to get your panties all twisted up over my skepticism. You can't understand why I don't get such a simple idea. The fact is Andrew I do get it. I clearly see the numerological argument as clearly as I see the invisible gardener argument. I do believe in God and it not just because of the invisible gardener argument. Its also in part out of life experience. All that suggests but does not prove the existence of a higher power. I see other reasons to believe in the greenhouse effect also. Like in Gee! it is warm! But with a complete lack of clear physical demonstration, I probably mostly believe in God on the basis of Pascal's Wager. Old Pascal mucked around in physics too. In fact a very small amount of pressure is named after him. . . . Pascals. It takes 100,000 pascals to equal one atmosphere. I was reading up on testing of MLI insulation in space craft. A strategy of layering many layers of high reflectivity (97%) foil between fine nylon meshes for insulating satellites and high temperature difference industrial processes in vacuum chambers to reduce heat losses. Good stuff. but it needs to be kept in perspective. The main benefit is low space consumption compared to other insulating materials, making for smaller satellites and vacuum chambers, greatly decreasing other costs. However, there is a caveat also. The insulation value is negated even in assemblies of 30 layers if as much as 7 pascals of residual gas is left trapped in between the layers. Dang Andrew, that amount of gas is only .007% of the amount of gas in our atmosphere at ground level. And negates 30 layers of this stuff as in 30 times nothing is still nothing! Well anyway back to Pascal's wager on the existence of God. Pascal argued for believing in God as there was a reward if you did and it turned out that he did exist. But no reward if you were wrong and no reward if you were right and did not believe. So that brings us to a CO2 induced greenhouse effect. Considering Pascal's wager seems to favor me not believing in it. Monetarily I am the payor not the payee. However, if I were a climate scientist clearly I should believe it. Monetarily, he would be the payor to a much higher degree than he was a payor (tax rate schedule). . . .demonstrating the real value of a consultant to pat people on the back and tell them they are doing the right thing. Digging a little deeper with Pacal's wager what are the long term issues. Would a little bit of warming be good or bad. Seems every scale I try to measure that on a little warming would be a good thing. How about a little more CO2 (pollution) in the atmosphere? Gee that seems likely to be good for the fertilizing effect. So at any rate, it all seems like a huge tempest in a tiny little teapot. Its beyond me why that gets your panties all twisted up unless you just aren't confessing to being biased.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 4:56:27 GMT
a complete lack of clear physical demonstration Bullshit. We have been talking about a very very simple idea here. One that provokes you to begin talking about proving the existance of God or equating it to numerology. In response to this enormously simple idea you have rejected the use of engineering curves used daily by millions of human beings, and rejected the childishly simple demonstrations of the principle created by me, while talking a language that no human being can understand.what people fail to recognize here for practical application in an active thermodynamic process this is a "snapshot". The actual cooling rate in the real world where things may not be completely in equilibrium is the actual cooling rate of the hot object is the value pulled from the Net Radiation Chart plus the cooling rate of the cooler object. In other words dynamically the heated object is heating the cooler object while the cooler object is cooling itself. If the actual rate of cooling was not both the Chart value plus the cooling rate of the cooler object would get colder and at the rate its cooling and the Enginneers curve will be right there to instantly fill that void. Thus this is the reason a cooler brick put between say outer space and a hot radiating object, the brick will cause the hot radiating target to continue to warm up if and only if the back radiation is greater than the backside (facing outwards) radiation. Your objection is gibberish that no human being can understand. If your objections have any basis in reality whatsoever you should be able to explain them to another human being.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. Your text is gibberish that no human being can understand. The unanswered question in my mind is whether or not you realise you are typing gibberish? On the face of things you are nothing better than a disgusting time wasting troll with nothing better to do than waste another persons time. Either way you are talking gibberish that no human being can understand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2016 7:10:11 GMT
a complete lack of clear physical demonstration Bullshit. We have been talking about a very very simple idea here. One that provokes you to begin talking about proving the existance of God or equating it to numerology. In response to this enormously simple idea you have rejected the use of engineering curves used daily by millions of human beings, and rejected the childishly simple demonstrations of the principle created by me, while talking a language that no human being can understand.You don't know what you are talking about. Millions of people are not testing the limits of radiation theory on a daily basis. What nonsense! The only reason you don't understand what I am talking about is you are some mindlessly inculcated into believing what you believe your brain just slams shut at any thing contrary to what you believe. Your diagram is fine, I have not problem with it except the warming limit you set for a single molecule or very small number of molecules in what might be a rather large layer. As I see it, for example, a CO2 molecule near ground level is going to freaking be the temperature near ground level via diffusion. Diffusion simply knocks the snot out of any radiation effect that even 97% reflective surfaces have in MLI. Gases at pressure levels of about .07 millibar in studies is killing any insulative value of CO2. It might even be the case that a low equilibrium temperature exists for virtual gas surfaces but nobody has been able drive anything resembling heat or energy out of the fact if in fact it is a fact. Insulated surfaces heat up to full and expected temperatures, perhaps falling slightly short and it seems plausible that groups of molecules will not if they have not already heated up from conduction from air from the surface that clearly maintains the temperature profile of at least the troposphere. Above the troposphere of course limits on heating of CO2 just don't matter by ground source radiation because the atmosphere above 500mb generally already radiatively speaking well below half power. Like I say the only way you can demonstrate this rather elusive idea is through mathematics. . . .the very definition of numerology. And shiit Andrew calling it a "simple idea" sure has heck does not add a bit of substance to that. If you can add substance I will be waiting.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 7:49:03 GMT
Bullshit. We have been talking about a very very simple idea here. One that provokes you to begin talking about proving the existance of God or equating it to numerology. In response to this enormously simple idea you have rejected the use of engineering curves used daily by millions of human beings, and rejected the childishly simple demonstrations of the principle created by me, while talking a language that no human being can understand. You don't know what you are talking about. Millions of people are not testing the limits of radiation theory on a daily basis. What nonsense! The only reason you don't understand what I am talking about is you are some mindlessly inculcated into believing what you believe your brain just slams shut at any thing contrary to what you believe. Your diagram is fine, I have not problem with it except the warming limit you set for a single molecule or very small number of molecules in what might be a rather large layer. As I see it, for example, a CO2 molecule near ground level is going to freaking be the temperature near ground level via diffusion. Diffusion simply knocks the snot out of any radiation effect that even 97% reflective surfaces have in MLI. Gases at pressure levels of about .07 millibar in studies is killing any insulative value of CO2. It might even be the case that a low equilibrium temperature exists for virtual gas surfaces but nobody has been able drive anything resembling heat or energy out of the fact if in fact it is a fact. Insulated surfaces heat up to full and expected temperatures, perhaps falling slightly short and it seems plausible that groups of molecules will not if they have not already heated up from conduction from air from the surface that clearly maintains the temperature profile of at least the troposphere. Above the troposphere of course limits on heating of CO2 just don't matter by ground source radiation because the atmosphere above 500mb generally already radiatively speaking well below half power. Like I say the only way you can demonstrate this rather elusive idea is through mathematics. . . .the very definition of numerology. And shiit Andrew calling it a "simple idea" sure has heck does not add a bit of substance to that. If you can add substance I will be waiting. We are talking about an idea a child can understand which no amount of your obfuscation and deliberate misdirection is going to make any difference to. It is fairly obvious to me now with this latest misdirection and obfuscation that you invented the steady state ratio nonesense as a way of avoiding agreement I was correct. Therefore it seems reasonably clear you do realise the surface layers are going to become warmer or the laws of physics are wrong A cloud made of H2O is being heated - it must be hotter than it would be if it were not heated. The invisible vapour is also being heated A warmed cold object causes the hotter surface layer that is heated already to be hotter. However since your behaviour has been weird since day one, it is not clear to me if from day one you realised the G and T paper was gibberish or if along the way you have learnt something from me. What possible explanation can there be for your comment my fridge was mains power other than you were obfuscating and misdirecting? What possible explanation can there be for the months when you were calling me a liar and recently you still were doing so? Effectively you have turned out to be just a stupid little troll rather than the raving lunatic I imagined I was treating.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2016 8:51:53 GMT
You don't know what you are talking about. Millions of people are not testing the limits of radiation theory on a daily basis. What nonsense! The only reason you don't understand what I am talking about is you are some mindlessly inculcated into believing what you believe your brain just slams shut at any thing contrary to what you believe. Your diagram is fine, I have not problem with it except the warming limit you set for a single molecule or very small number of molecules in what might be a rather large layer. As I see it, for example, a CO2 molecule near ground level is going to freaking be the temperature near ground level via diffusion. Diffusion simply knocks the snot out of any radiation effect that even 97% reflective surfaces have in MLI. Gases at pressure levels of about .07 millibar in studies is killing any insulative value of CO2. It might even be the case that a low equilibrium temperature exists for virtual gas surfaces but nobody has been able drive anything resembling heat or energy out of the fact if in fact it is a fact. Insulated surfaces heat up to full and expected temperatures, perhaps falling slightly short and it seems plausible that groups of molecules will not if they have not already heated up from conduction from air from the surface that clearly maintains the temperature profile of at least the troposphere. Above the troposphere of course limits on heating of CO2 just don't matter by ground source radiation because the atmosphere above 500mb generally already radiatively speaking well below half power. Like I say the only way you can demonstrate this rather elusive idea is through mathematics. . . .the very definition of numerology. And shiit Andrew calling it a "simple idea" sure has heck does not add a bit of substance to that. If you can add substance I will be waiting. We are talking about an idea a child can understand which no amount of your obfuscation and deliberate misdirection is going to make any difference to. The surface layers are going to become warmer or the laws of physics are wrong A cloud made of H2O is being heated - it must be hotter than it would be if it were not heated. The invisible vapour is also being heated A warmed cold object causes the hotter surface layer that is heated already to be hotter. Your diagram suggests (talking in terms of means) and figuring 390watts/m2 of surface radiation. Since any object is going to have at least 2 surfaces, and radiation law specifies those surfaces to be at at temperature each surface is radiating in accordance with radiation laws (e.g. the T value for 195watts/m2) the temperature for the spaceward surface of the CO2 layer must be minus31C. But with a 15C surface, at the 500mb level temperature would be only about -20C. So any CO2 there would already be warmer than the temperature suggested by your radiation vectors for each surface. Go figure! You have hot rock 390w/m2 on the inbound, and two outbounds at 195w/m2 apiece. Simple application of radiation equations gets you -31C for the CO2 fully absorbing and reaching a steady state in the disposition of that surface radiation. To send it back to return with 585w/m2 to do the same non-job. Am I skeptical?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 9:44:43 GMT
Your diagram suggests (talking in terms of means) and figuring 390watts/m2 of surface radiation. Since any object is going to have at least 2 surfaces, and radiation law specifies those surfaces to be at at temperature each surface is radiating in accordance with radiation laws (e.g. the T value for 195watts/m2) the temperature for the spaceward surface of the CO2 layer must be minus31C. But with a 15C surface, at the 500mb level temperature would be only about -20C. So any CO2 there would already be warmer than the temperature suggested by your radiation vectors for each surface. Go figure! You have hot rock 390w/m2 on the inbound, and two outbounds at 195w/m2 apiece. Simple application of radiation equations gets you -31C for the CO2 fully absorbing and reaching a steady state in the disposition of that surface radiation. To send it back to return with 585w/m2 to do the same non-job. Am I skeptical? More obfuscation and misdirection. You have been disputing an idea a child can understand for 4 years during which time you have cheated your way thru page after page of nonesense and called me a liar for months on end. Do you now agree a child can correctly understand the greenhouse idea?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2016 10:06:27 GMT
Your diagram suggests (talking in terms of means) and figuring 390watts/m2 of surface radiation. Since any object is going to have at least 2 surfaces, and radiation law specifies those surfaces to be at at temperature each surface is radiating in accordance with radiation laws (e.g. the T value for 195watts/m2) the temperature for the spaceward surface of the CO2 layer must be minus31C. But with a 15C surface, at the 500mb level temperature would be only about -20C. So any CO2 there would already be warmer than the temperature suggested by your radiation vectors for each surface. Go figure! You have hot rock 390w/m2 on the inbound, and two outbounds at 195w/m2 apiece. Simple application of radiation equations gets you -31C for the CO2 fully absorbing and reaching a steady state in the disposition of that surface radiation. To send it back to return with 585w/m2 to do the same non-job. Am I skeptical? More obfuscation and misdirection. You have been disputing an idea a child can understand for 4 years during which time you have cheated your way thru page after page of nonesense and called me a liar for months on end. Do you now agree a child can correctly understand the greenhouse idea? Yeah especially when you use funny cartoons instead of an experiment to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 10:13:11 GMT
More obfuscation and misdirection. You have been disputing an idea a child can understand for 4 years during which time you have cheated your way thru page after page of nonesense and called me a liar for months on end. Do you now agree a child can correctly understand the greenhouse idea? Yeah especially when you use funny cartoons instead of an experiment to prove it. The idea is true or the laws of physics are wrong. What kind of a sad sick retard is going to dispute the idea with gibberish that no human being can understand?? what people fail to recognize here for practical application in an active thermodynamic process this is a "snapshot". The actual cooling rate in the real world where things may not be completely in equilibrium is the actual cooling rate of the hot object is the value pulled from the Net Radiation Chart plus the cooling rate of the cooler object. In other words dynamically the heated object is heating the cooler object while the cooler object is cooling itself. If the actual rate of cooling was not both the Chart value plus the cooling rate of the cooler object would get colder and at the rate its cooling and the Enginneers curve will be right there to instantly fill that void. Thus this is the reason a cooler brick put between say outer space and a hot radiating object, the brick will cause the hot radiating target to continue to warm up if and only if the back radiation is greater than the backside (facing outwards) radiation. 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. 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 29, 2016 11:17:56 GMT
Your diagram suggests (talking in terms of means) and figuring 390watts/m2 of surface radiation. Since any object is going to have at least 2 surfaces, and radiation law specifies those surfaces to be at at temperature each surface is radiating in accordance with radiation laws (e.g. the T value for 195watts/m2) the temperature for the spaceward surface of the CO2 layer must be minus31C. But with a 15C surface, at the 500mb level temperature would be only about -20C. So any CO2 there would already be warmer than the temperature suggested by your radiation vectors for each surface. Go figure! You have hot rock 390w/m2 on the inbound, and two outbounds at 195w/m2 apiece. Simple application of radiation equations gets you -31C for the CO2 fully absorbing and reaching a steady state in the disposition of that surface radiation. To send it back to return with 585w/m2 to do the same non-job. Am I skeptical? As usual you want to duck the real issue and go back to playing strawman builder. Thinking about it more, the inconsistency pops up its head once again. If this lousy CO2 cannot be warmed to an equilibrium temperature straight away, and it needs to first warm the surface to do so. Thats inconsistent with the claim that sun would warm the surface because of its slower cooling because that radiation is also fully accounted for. And lets see now! Your claim and the only response the warmists could come up against G&T with was the cold CO2 did not straight away warm the surface but it did it by slowing the cooling. Now we know that cooling can be slowed and where there is excess heat capacity the cooling object will warm. But according to your plan for warming the surface you are saying radiation does it differently to CO2 than the solar radiation does to the earth surface. Its been 3 years you have been dodging this issue and building strawmen. Maybe you can grow up and explain all this to a big kid.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 11:48:32 GMT
Your diagram suggests (talking in terms of means) and figuring 390watts/m2 of surface radiation. Since any object is going to have at least 2 surfaces, and radiation law specifies those surfaces to be at at temperature each surface is radiating in accordance with radiation laws (e.g. the T value for 195watts/m2) the temperature for the spaceward surface of the CO2 layer must be minus31C. But with a 15C surface, at the 500mb level temperature would be only about -20C. So any CO2 there would already be warmer than the temperature suggested by your radiation vectors for each surface. Go figure! You have hot rock 390w/m2 on the inbound, and two outbounds at 195w/m2 apiece. Simple application of radiation equations gets you -31C for the CO2 fully absorbing and reaching a steady state in the disposition of that surface radiation. To send it back to return with 585w/m2 to do the same non-job. Am I skeptical? As usual you want to duck the real issue and go back to playing strawman builder. Bullshit. If your only response to an idea a child can understand is to produce pages of insane gibberish I am never going to read your views on CO2 Are you able to demonstrate the intelligence level of a child or not? >>Your claim....the cold CO2 did not straight away warm the surface but it did it by slowing the cooling What the f**k is the matter with you?? Its an axiomatic consequence of the f**king engineers curves you f**king moron.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2016 11:52:55 GMT
Hey Andrew, here is what your model for global warming makes me think of. I realize its not just your model. Steve promoted it and I saw that even Harvard University was also. Is this what separates numerology from science? But it appears you would rather stay down at the 3rd grade level.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 12:16:29 GMT
You realise nothing. >>Your claim....the cold CO2 did not straight away warm the surface but it did it by slowing the cooling It is an axiomatic consequence of the engineers curves.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 14:26:39 GMT
CO2 does not warm anything.
|
|