|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2016 9:49:14 GMT
A thermometer surrounded by air is nearly never measuring the temperature of the air. You need to construct a gadget to measure the true air temperature. A thermometer is nearly always surrounded by solid objects or more distant 'surfaces' of different temperature and they will always be impacting the result recorded. The thermometer is simple an object that has arrived at a steady state when faced with the combined heating and cooling influences of all of its surroundings. Such as for example a cold north wall and a warmer southern wall. Air is a poor conductor of heat. Flows of air are insufficient to cause all surface temperatures to be identical i still don't know what i am supposed to be falsify or what pictet experiment you are talking about
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 10:11:26 GMT
A thermometer surrounded by air is nearly never measuring the temperature of the air. You need to construct a gadget to measure the true air temperature. A thermometer is nearly always surrounded by solid objects or more distant 'surfaces' of different temperature and they will always be impacting the result recorded. The thermometer is simple an object that has arrived at a steady state when faced with the combined heating and cooling influences of all of its surroundings. Such as for example a cold north wall and a warmer southern wall. Air is a poor conductor of heat. Flows of air are insufficient to cause all surface temperatures to be identical i still don't know what i am supposed to be falsify or what pictet experiment you are talking about www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf Note also on page 743, Rumfords experiment around 1800 where he demonstrated in an ordinary room a cold object X degrees below room temperature has an exactly opposite impact upon a thermometer as a hot object X degrees above room temperature. Rumford had already realised the rate of production of calorific rays varied depending on coverings used so could easily have controlled for convection. If you can falsify that you will overturn the heat science of the last 220 years and most definitely you will get major prizes and become world famous
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2016 18:34:02 GMT
I don't think so. If you replace 22C walls with 15C walls most of the heat loss will be from conduction of the air as convection gets going. Also the thermometer will not cool because the radiant heat loss will be less than what is gained by conduction from the air. 1. It does not matter how most of the heat loss occurs. It only requires a tiny heat loss to create the immediately falling thermometer reading 2. Air is a poor conductor. Otherwise pictet 226 years ago would have found it hard to notice the temperature immediately falling 3. A thermometer in air does not measure the temperature of the air around the thermometer. It measures the combined heating and cooling effect the thermometer experiences from all parts of the room. If you want to measure the true air temperature then you need to insulate the thermometer and then gently expose it to air from outside the insulation and wait for the insulation to either heat up or cool down inside the insulation nearest to the thermometer. There are gadgets for doing this i think. 3. If you can falsify this you will get a nobel prize. Free air is not a bad conductor Andrew. Your experiment does not begin to give enough information to actually calculate what the results are. You need to know what the thermometer is made of, what the walls are made of. You need to know the various masses of the cold in the walls, the thermometer and the air. Also your experiment would work as calculated below only if the ceiling and floor in addition to the walls are replaced with 15c As soon as you erect the wall, assuming instantaneously, there would be a drop in the thermometer instantaneously. One degree? Who knows? What immediate starts happening is both the thermometer and the wall start absorbing wattage from the air. The walls will immediately start absorbing heat from the air. Because of heat gradients what the walls absorb will offset heat loss from the thermometer. So I would calculate as so. Heat gain from 22C everything to 15C walls by radiation = -39.33w/m2 Heat gain of 15c wall by 22C air in free convection = +35w/m2 Thus the wall would present a radiation field -5w/m2 to the thermometer as long as you also removed all the greenhouse gases from the room, if you didn't then even less. Heat gain by the thermometer via convection from 22C air by a 21C thermometer = 5w/m2 So net cooling of the thermometer could be very close to one degree if you had specified that the ceiling and floor and all the greenhouse gases had been removed. But that would also be instantaneous because immediately without assist everything would start moving back toward an equilibrium (assuming an environment outside the room was having no effect) So to get the one degree you would need all those things and a thermometer that acted instantly because without assist its just going to degrade. Which of the processes that win the battle will depend upon other factors such as mass and whether the bulk air in the room cools if it cools (forced air?) or how fast the walls warm if they warm (radiant heated?) and even those same dynamics on the thermometer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 19:15:13 GMT
1. It does not matter how most of the heat loss occurs. It only requires a tiny heat loss to create the immediately falling thermometer reading 2. Air is a poor conductor. Otherwise pictet 226 years ago would have found it hard to notice the temperature immediately falling 3. A thermometer in air does not measure the temperature of the air around the thermometer. It measures the combined heating and cooling effect the thermometer experiences from all parts of the room. If you want to measure the true air temperature then you need to insulate the thermometer and then gently expose it to air from outside the insulation and wait for the insulation to either heat up or cool down inside the insulation nearest to the thermometer. There are gadgets for doing this i think. 3. If you can falsify this you will get a nobel prize. Free air is not a bad conductor Andrew. Your experiment does not begin to give enough information to actually calculate what the results are. You need to know what the thermometer is made of, what the walls are made of. You need to know the various masses of the cold in the walls, the thermometer and the air. Also your experiment would work as calculated below only if the ceiling and floor in addition to the walls are replaced with 15c As soon as you erect the wall, assuming instantaneously, there would be a drop in the thermometer instantaneously. One degree? Who knows? What immediate starts happening is both the thermometer and the wall start absorbing wattage from the air. The walls will immediately start absorbing heat from the air. Because of heat gradients what the walls absorb will offset heat loss from the thermometer. So I would calculate as so. Heat gain from 22C everything to 15C walls by radiation = -39.33w/m2 Heat gain of 15c wall by 22C air in free convection = +35w/m2 Thus the wall would present a radiation field -5w/m2 to the thermometer as long as you also removed all the greenhouse gases from the room, if you didn't then even less. Heat gain by the thermometer via convection from 22C air by a 21C thermometer = 5w/m2 So net cooling of the thermometer could be very close to one degree if you had specified that the ceiling and floor and all the greenhouse gases had been removed. But that would also be instantaneous because immediately without assist everything would start moving back toward an equilibrium (assuming an environment outside the room was having no effect) So to get the one degree you would need all those things and a thermometer that acted instantly because without assist its just going to degrade. Which of the processes that win the battle will depend upon other factors such as mass and whether the bulk air in the room cools if it cools (forced air?) or how fast the walls warm if they warm (radiant heated?) and even those same dynamics on the thermometer. Still air is a poor conductor. The situation is different when there is a flow of air. Anyway my proposed experiment is not important. Rumford used an air thermometer which was particularly sensitive and something he had made especially for the sensitivity he needed where earlier attempts had failed. He had the thermometer above the ice or by the side of the ice for the same result etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2016 21:50:17 GMT
Free air is not a bad conductor Andrew. Your experiment does not begin to give enough information to actually calculate what the results are. You need to know what the thermometer is made of, what the walls are made of. You need to know the various masses of the cold in the walls, the thermometer and the air. Also your experiment would work as calculated below only if the ceiling and floor in addition to the walls are replaced with 15c As soon as you erect the wall, assuming instantaneously, there would be a drop in the thermometer instantaneously. One degree? Who knows? What immediate starts happening is both the thermometer and the wall start absorbing wattage from the air. The walls will immediately start absorbing heat from the air. Because of heat gradients what the walls absorb will offset heat loss from the thermometer. So I would calculate as so. Heat gain from 22C everything to 15C walls by radiation = -39.33w/m2 Heat gain of 15c wall by 22C air in free convection = +35w/m2 Thus the wall would present a radiation field -5w/m2 to the thermometer as long as you also removed all the greenhouse gases from the room, if you didn't then even less. Heat gain by the thermometer via convection from 22C air by a 21C thermometer = 5w/m2 So net cooling of the thermometer could be very close to one degree if you had specified that the ceiling and floor and all the greenhouse gases had been removed. But that would also be instantaneous because immediately without assist everything would start moving back toward an equilibrium (assuming an environment outside the room was having no effect) So to get the one degree you would need all those things and a thermometer that acted instantly because without assist its just going to degrade. Which of the processes that win the battle will depend upon other factors such as mass and whether the bulk air in the room cools if it cools (forced air?) or how fast the walls warm if they warm (radiant heated?) and even those same dynamics on the thermometer. Still air is a poor conductor. The situation is different when there is a flow of air. Anyway my proposed experiment is not important. Rumford used an air thermometer which was particularly sensitive and something he had made especially for the sensitivity he needed where earlier attempts had failed. He had the thermometer above the ice or by the side of the ice for the same result etc etc. The calculations I did above was for still air convection. I used the lowest value for the heat transfer rate. The Engineering Toolbox characterizes convection as both diffusion and the bulk movement of air identified as convection. Heat energy transferred between a surface and a moving fluid at different temperatures is known as convection.
In reality this is a combination of diffusion and bulk motion of molecules. Near the surface the fluid velocity is low, and diffusion dominates. Away from the surface, bulk motion increase the influence and dominates.
If convection sets up into a measurable bulk movement of air, the problem becomes much harder to judge what coefficient to use. However, the Engineering toolbox indicates that the value is between 5 and 1000 for free convection. I used the smallest number. It is almost certainly greater at the wall and probably correct at the thermometer because no doubt this range has been tested across all surfaces the size of a thermometer and up. If you use the largest number it comes out to 1000w/m2. The only caveat is they say "air, gases, and dry vapors". Water and liquids are 50 to 3000. So 100% humidity air should be well above the minimum number. Of course there could be some gases that get down lower than air so 5 might be too low but clearly it has to be bounded by the 5 and well below 50 without the convection picking up speed. The climate modelers report mostly they are working on these boundary conditions to try to make the models work more realistically. No doubt with all the number fudging they will never get to a model that actually performs like the atmosphere, they are just too overwhelmed with garbage in and garbage out.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 22:11:02 GMT
Still air is a poor conductor. The situation is different when there is a flow of air. Anyway my proposed experiment is not important. Rumford used an air thermometer which was particularly sensitive and something he had made especially for the sensitivity he needed where earlier attempts had failed. He had the thermometer above the ice or by the side of the ice for the same result etc etc. The calculations I did above was for still air convection. I used the lowest value for the heat transfer rate. The Engineering Toolbox characterizes convection as both diffusion and the bulk movement of air identified as convection. Heat energy transferred between a surface and a moving fluid at different temperatures is known as convection.
In reality this is a combination of diffusion and bulk motion of molecules. Near the surface the fluid velocity is low, and diffusion dominates. Away from the surface, bulk motion increase the influence and dominates.
If convection sets up into a measurable bulk movement of air, the problem becomes much harder to judge what coefficient to use. However, the Engineering toolbox indicates that the value is between 5 and 1000 for free convection. I used the smallest number. It is almost certainly greater at the wall and probably correct at the thermometer because no doubt this range has been tested across all surfaces the size of a thermometer and up. If you use the largest number it comes out to 1000w/m2. The only caveat is they say "air, gases, and dry vapors". Water and liquids are 50 to 3000. So 100% humidity air should be well above the minimum number. Of course there could be some gases that get down lower than air so 5 might be too low but clearly it has to be bounded by the 5 and well below 50 without the convection picking up speed. The climate modelers report mostly they are working on these boundary conditions to try to make the models work more realistically. No doubt with all the number fudging they will never get to a model that actually performs like the atmosphere, they are just too overwhelmed with garbage in and garbage out. What is your point? Are you claiming your calculations overturn the experimental evidence of the early pioneers of heat where those results have never been challenged by anybody at any time since then even with the most sophisticated equipment imaginable? Is a radiation frost verboten in your world also?? Are you claiming a radiation thermometer does not measure the sky temperature?? pretty obviously you are prepared to carry on being stupid far longer than i can ever live We are done.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2016 1:32:51 GMT
The calculations I did above was for still air convection. I used the lowest value for the heat transfer rate. The Engineering Toolbox characterizes convection as both diffusion and the bulk movement of air identified as convection. Heat energy transferred between a surface and a moving fluid at different temperatures is known as convection.
In reality this is a combination of diffusion and bulk motion of molecules. Near the surface the fluid velocity is low, and diffusion dominates. Away from the surface, bulk motion increase the influence and dominates.
If convection sets up into a measurable bulk movement of air, the problem becomes much harder to judge what coefficient to use. However, the Engineering toolbox indicates that the value is between 5 and 1000 for free convection. I used the smallest number. It is almost certainly greater at the wall and probably correct at the thermometer because no doubt this range has been tested across all surfaces the size of a thermometer and up. If you use the largest number it comes out to 1000w/m2. The only caveat is they say "air, gases, and dry vapors". Water and liquids are 50 to 3000. So 100% humidity air should be well above the minimum number. Of course there could be some gases that get down lower than air so 5 might be too low but clearly it has to be bounded by the 5 and well below 50 without the convection picking up speed. The climate modelers report mostly they are working on these boundary conditions to try to make the models work more realistically. No doubt with all the number fudging they will never get to a model that actually performs like the atmosphere, they are just too overwhelmed with garbage in and garbage out. What is your point? Are you claiming your calculations overturn the experimental evidence of the early pioneers of heat where those results have never been challenged by anybody at any time since then even with the most sophisticated equipment imaginable? Is a radiation frost verboten in your world also?? Are you claiming a radiation thermometer does not measure the sky temperature?? pretty obviously you are prepared to carry on being stupid far longer than i can ever live We are done. Are you disputing the Engineering Toolbox Calculations??? We are talking about on explicit example you posted. What does that have to do with radiation frost? That is caused by two substances with different emissivities and other factors Andrew! The vast majority of what eliminates the effect of radiation is contact with the wall by the air, where emissivity is not a factor. Radiation frost is a condition where cooling is occurring at the surface faster than the atmosphere a few feet above it over a vast area, not just the tip of a thermometer. It takes a significant amount of time to pool enough cool air just above the surface to insulate it from the general air temperature. I said the entire wally thermy thing would find some undefined cooler state as the walls and the air find an equilibrium. And with the floor and ceiling still at 22C they are working to keep the thermometer warm. You should catch a clue from the climate scientists that claim it will take maybe a thousand years (likely underestimated) for the effect of elevated CO2 levels fully play out in their effect. I also acknowledged that changing the wall to a colder temperature will have an effect. But I am not guessing what it is until I know a lot more. Like assuming the thermometer is dead center in the room. How tall is the room, how many square feet is the room. What are the walls made of. What is the heat loss/heat gain through the walls, ceiling, and floor. You just blurt out one degree as if you had clue one what you are talking about and had it all covered. You need to learn more about radiation! And the Pictet experiment uses tools to magnify heat loss by modifying in unique ways the field of view. Both of these latter tools are used by NASA to cool satellites and space craft. I am not overturning anything at all. You just don't understand the variables.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 1, 2016 8:54:47 GMT
You just don't understand the variables. Rumford did not use mirrors linkFalsify his claimed experimental results and you get the Nobel prize. the thermometer will not cool because the radiant heat loss will be less than what is gained by conduction from the air. At time zero the radiant heat loss is increased and the conductive heat gain is zero. The thermometer must immediately become colder
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2016 17:45:21 GMT
You just don't understand the variables. Rumford did not use mirrors linkFalsify his claimed experimental results and you get the Nobel prize. the thermometer will not cool because the radiant heat loss will be less than what is gained by conduction from the air. At time zero the radiant heat loss is increased and the conductive heat gain is zero. The thermometer must immediately become colder Of course the thermometer is going to get colder faster. The thermometer has greater emissivity than the air. What I objected to was your conclusion that the thermometer in your room would immediately get 1 degree cooler. Even Rumford did not claim anything but that "cooling rays" were as potent as "warming rays" - probably a lot closer to the idea of a difference in potential determining heating and cooling rates than photons, especially bass-ackward photons. Why do you keep going back to these strawmen! You seem to be on this pointless mission to accuse me of not believing in stuff that has been proven. Please go look at the thread "how it works" Get in your mind we agree on 1 through 3. The only issue I am interested in is proof of whether 4 a) or 4 b) is the correct answer. And believe me Andrew I don't know! I am merely skeptical of the way IR forcing is calculated and it seems nobody can tell me. They merely wave their arms and say no else matters and nothing else could account for the variation we have seen. You though claim not be a warmist, yet you come with the latest 1 degree cooling from changing a warm wall to a 7 degree cooler wall. LOL! So what is the atmosphere going to warm in your view Andrew from a doubling of CO2?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 1, 2016 18:47:04 GMT
Rumford did not use mirrors linkFalsify his claimed experimental results and you get the Nobel prize. At time zero the radiant heat loss is increased and the conductive heat gain is zero. The thermometer must immediately become colder Of course the thermometer is going to get colder faster. The thermometer has greater emissivity than the air. What I objected to was your conclusion that the thermometer in your room would immediately get 1 degree cooler. Even Rumford did not claim anything but that "cooling rays" were as potent as "warming rays" - probably a lot closer to the idea of a difference in potential determining heating and cooling rates than photons, especially bass-ackward photons. Why do you keep going back to these strawmen! You seem to be on this pointless mission to accuse me of not believing in stuff that has been proven. Please go look at the thread "how it works" Get in your mind we agree on 1 through 3. The only issue I am interested in is proof of whether 4 a) or 4 b) is the correct answer. And believe me Andrew I don't know! I am merely skeptical of the way IR forcing is calculated and it seems nobody can tell me. They merely wave their arms and say no else matters and nothing else could account for the variation we have seen. You though claim not be a warmist, yet you come with the latest 1 degree cooling from changing a warm wall to a 7 degree cooler wall. LOL! So what is the atmosphere going to warm in your view Andrew from a doubling of CO2? I was not suggesting it would jump 1 degree instantaneously. >>>even Rumford did not claim anything but that "cooling rays" were as potent as "warming rays" Rumford demonstrated that cold immediately began to cause the indicator liquid to move Are you still disputing that??I do not do strawmen, or change goal posts or lie. You simply seem to be disputing what is common scientific knowledge established hundreds of years ago. The concave mirror used by others does not magnify cold it just makes it easier to show the thermometer lines of sight to cold in a very quick moment of time without creating currents of air. Spacecraft do not use magnifying methods for the passive cooling stages of cryo coolers. The emitters are outwards pointing cones or pyramids. Why in gods name are you talking about insulation and surface area for spencers thought experiment? Why in gods name did you claim engineers net radiation heat loss curves require a special interpretation that only you can understand and no other human being on the planet can? We are talking about simple scientific principles that any body can understand if they want to. >>Please go look at the thread "how it works" it is gibberish. I have no idea why you wrote that or what it means
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2016 20:36:38 GMT
Of course the thermometer is going to get colder faster. The thermometer has greater emissivity than the air. What I objected to was your conclusion that the thermometer in your room would immediately get 1 degree cooler. You though claim not be a warmist, yet you come with the latest 1 degree cooling from changing a warm wall to a 7 degree cooler wall. LOL! So what is the atmosphere going to warm in your view Andrew from a doubling of CO2? I was not suggesting it would jump 1 degree instantaneously. Who said instantaneously? You said: You must agree I think the thermometer would quickly fall to say 21C? Even while the dry air in the room remains much closer to 22C
>>>even Rumford did not claim anything but that "cooling rays" were as potent as "warming rays" Rumford demonstrated that cold immediately began to cause the indicator liquid to move Are you still disputing that??Hmmmmmmmmmm, would that mean quickly or instantaneously Andrew? You are such a total jerk! I do not do strawmen, or change goal posts or lie. If you do none of the above how would you characterize me arguing against the results produced by Rumford when clearly I did not as I only read the Rumford experiment a few hours ago. You simply seem to be disputing what is common scientific knowledge established hundreds of years ago. The concave mirror used by others does not magnify cold it just makes it easier to show the thermometer lines of sight to cold in a very quick moment of time without creating currents of air. You mean field of view in the technical jargon! Artificially increasing the field of view using mirrors allows for the radiation cooling rate to exceed that of conduction which is limited to the same area of contact given no other changes. That is a form of magnification. So again you are either being a jerk or an ignoramus. Spacecraft do not use magnifying methods for the passive cooling stages of cryo coolers. The emitters are outwards pointing cones or pyramids. Yeah maybe as long as you can define magnifying. What do you call: "The concave mirror used by others does not magnify cold it just makes it easier to show the thermometer lines of sight to cold in a very quick moment of time without creating currents of air." Again you are just being a jerk. What is your point that supposed to neatly edge its way between my idea and your idea? Why in gods name are you talking about insulation and surface area for spencers thought experiment? Changing goal posts again? I have no idea what you are talking about. I say I am talking about Spencers thought experiment. I am not! If you want to make a point about Spencer's thought experiment. . . . you make it. Why in gods name did you claim engineers net radiation heat loss curves require a special interpretation that only you can understand and no other human being on the planet can? I am not. The engineers net radiation curve only addresses heat losses between two objects. It does not address changes in equilibrium nor does it address heat losses from the cold object. All that stuff is what you are screwed up over and have failed to show any science what so ever either from ancients or modern science that addresses those additional issues. The whole point of the How it works topic is to ask the question of what the equilibrium temperature will be for an object not assumed to be a blackbody. Is that simple enough for you to understand? Stefan Boltzmann equations say a non-blackbody with an emissivity of less than unity (1.0) will have the same equilibrium temperature as an object with emissivity less than unity. However, none of the above talks about other heat losses. The backradiation diagram bandied by you and even Harvard University has the non-blackbody emitting back half of the radiation received, as if emissivity did not matter, and radiating the other half to space. One would think that this radiation from the surface is not being absorbed by the CO2 so it does not warm, but still emits back like it did absorb it. The whole greenhouse theory has a lot of intuitive pull but it seems like its been invented to explain a single observation. As I have said a thousand times if I have said once. Where is the experiment that shows this warming occurring? We are talking about simple scientific principles that any body can understand if they want to. Due to the complete lack of convincing and relevant experimental results. I would reword your statement to: "We are talking about simple scientific principles that anybody can extrapolate if they want to. >>Please go look at the thread "how it works" it is gibberish. I have no idea why you wrote that or what it means In a nutsell lets keep it simple. What is the equilibrium temperature of gases in the atmosphere warmed only by radiation. Is it the temperature of the warm object adjusted by field of view or is it half of that figure because of the lack of insulation? Is that simple enough for you?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 5:20:06 GMT
I was not suggesting it would jump 1 degree instantaneously. Who said instantaneously? You said: You must agree I think the thermometer would quickly fall to say 21C? Even while the dry air in the room remains much closer to 22C
Rumford demonstrated that cold immediately began to cause the indicator liquid to move Are you still disputing that??Hmmmmmmmmmm, would that mean quickly or instantaneously Andrew? You are such a total jerk! I do not do strawmen, or change goal posts or lie. If you do none of the above how would you characterize me arguing against the results produced by Rumford when clearly I did not as I only read the Rumford experiment a few hours ago. You simply seem to be disputing what is common scientific knowledge established hundreds of years ago. The concave mirror used by others does not magnify cold it just makes it easier to show the thermometer lines of sight to cold in a very quick moment of time without creating currents of air. You mean field of view in the technical jargon! Artificially increasing the field of view using mirrors allows for the radiation cooling rate to exceed that of conduction which is limited to the same area of contact given no other changes. That is a form of magnification. So again you are either being a jerk or an ignoramus. Spacecraft do not use magnifying methods for the passive cooling stages of cryo coolers. The emitters are outwards pointing cones or pyramids. Yeah maybe as long as you can define magnifying. What do you call: "The concave mirror used by others does not magnify cold it just makes it easier to show the thermometer lines of sight to cold in a very quick moment of time without creating currents of air." Again you are just being a jerk. What is your point that supposed to neatly edge its way between my idea and your idea? Why in gods name are you talking about insulation and surface area for spencers thought experiment? Changing goal posts again? I have no idea what you are talking about. I say I am talking about Spencers thought experiment. I am not! If you want to make a point about Spencer's thought experiment. . . . you make it. Why in gods name did you claim engineers net radiation heat loss curves require a special interpretation that only you can understand and no other human being on the planet can? I am not. The engineers net radiation curve only addresses heat losses between two objects. It does not address changes in equilibrium nor does it address heat losses from the cold object. All that stuff is what you are screwed up over and have failed to show any science what so ever either from ancients or modern science that addresses those additional issues. The whole point of the How it works topic is to ask the question of what the equilibrium temperature will be for an object not assumed to be a blackbody. Is that simple enough for you to understand? Stefan Boltzmann equations say a non-blackbody with an emissivity of less than unity (1.0) will have the same equilibrium temperature as an object with emissivity less than unity. However, none of the above talks about other heat losses. The backradiation diagram bandied by you and even Harvard University has the non-blackbody emitting back half of the radiation received, as if emissivity did not matter, and radiating the other half to space. One would think that this radiation from the surface is not being absorbed by the CO2 so it does not warm, but still emits back like it did absorb it. The whole greenhouse theory has a lot of intuitive pull but it seems like its been invented to explain a single observation. As I have said a thousand times if I have said once. Where is the experiment that shows this warming occurring? We are talking about simple scientific principles that any body can understand if they want to. Due to the complete lack of convincing and relevant experimental results. I would reword your statement to: "We are talking about simple scientific principles that anybody can extrapolate if they want to. >>Please go look at the thread "how it works" it is gibberish. I have no idea why you wrote that or what it means In a nutsell lets keep it simple. What is the equilibrium temperature of gases in the atmosphere warmed only by radiation. Is it the temperature of the warm object adjusted by field of view or is it half of that figure because of the lack of insulation? Is that simple enough for you? I am 60 years old. I am tired and exhausted by this conversation that goes endlessly on with no progress at all. I do not change goal posts or do straw men, or lie or cheat. You cannot keep calling me a liar while expecting me to look at your text that i have already told you is gibberish to me. >> Artificially increasing the field of view using mirrors allows for the radiation cooling rate to exceed that of conduction which is limited to the same area of contact given no other changes. That is a form of magnification. So again you are either being a jerk or an ignoramus. There is no magnification. It is just a simple method of exposing the thermometer to cold at a distance that is convenient to achieve where movement of air makes it almost impossible to demonstrate those results when larger areas of cold, or nearer cold objects are used. One mirror minifies and the other magnifies. All that is being done is taking the cold radiation that is diminished at the r2 rate until it hits the cold mirror and then transporting it without diminishing it by r2 until it reaches the hot mirror and then magnifying it by r2 till it strikes the thermometer.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 2:37:12 GMT
>> Artificially increasing the field of view using mirrors allows for the radiation cooling rate to exceed that of conduction which is limited to the same area of contact given no other changes. That is a form of magnification. So again you are either being a jerk or an ignoramus. There is no magnification. It is just a simple method of exposing the thermometer to cold at a distance that is convenient to achieve where movement of air makes it almost impossible to demonstrate those results when larger areas of cold, or nearer cold objects are used. One mirror minifies and the other magnifies. All that is being done is taking the cold radiation that is diminished at the r2 rate until it hits the cold mirror and then transporting it without diminishing it by r2 until it reaches the hot mirror and then magnifying it by r2 till it strikes the thermometer. Andrew, in the Pictet experiment you provided the flow of heat increased. Thats the precise definition of magnification. It magnifies the flow of energy between the two objects. The fact it takes two mirrors does not mean the flow of energy is not being magnified. I am over 70 and I would be as tired as you if I were so damned focused on being a right know-it-all all the time as you are.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 7:04:09 GMT
There is no magnification. It is just a simple method of exposing the thermometer to cold at a distance that is convenient to achieve where movement of air makes it almost impossible to demonstrate those results when larger areas of cold, or nearer cold objects are used. One mirror minifies and the other magnifies. All that is being done is taking the cold radiation that is diminished at the r2 rate until it hits the cold mirror and then transporting it without diminishing it by r2 until it reaches the hot mirror and then magnifying it by r2 till it strikes the thermometer. Andrew, in the Pictet experiment you provided the flow of heat increased. Thats the precise definition of magnification. It magnifies the flow of energy between the two objects. The fact it takes two mirrors does not mean the flow of energy is not being magnified. I am over 70 and I would be as tired as you if I were so damned focused on being a right know-it-all all the time as you are. Pictets experiment is the same thing as shaping the ice around the thermometer while also enabling the thermometer to see all of the warmer room. You would get a larger fall in the thermometer if you were able to prevent convection and change the walls to ice There is no magnification. All you are doing is taking the cold that would be experienced at the focus of the cold mirror and placing it at the focus of the hot mirror. Similarly the effect of a hot coal in the focus of one mirror can be transported to the other mirror to burn a piece of paper. There is no magnification or trickery. The mirrors just enable another location to experience what is experienced elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 8:52:56 GMT
Andrew, in the Pictet experiment you provided the flow of heat increased. Thats the precise definition of magnification. It magnifies the flow of energy between the two objects. The fact it takes two mirrors does not mean the flow of energy is not being magnified. I am over 70 and I would be as tired as you if I were so damned focused on being a right know-it-all all the time as you are. Pictets experiment is the same thing as shaping the ice around the thermometer while also enabling the thermometer to see all of the warmer room. You would get a larger fall in the thermometer if you were able to prevent convection and change the walls to ice There is no magnification. All you are doing is taking the cold that would be experienced at the focus of the cold mirror and placing it at the focus of the hot mirror. Similarly the effect of a hot coal in the focus of one mirror can be transported to the other mirror to burn a piece of paper. There is no magnification or trickery. The mirrors just enable another location to experience what is experienced elsewhere. Andrew all magnification is reshaping an image to a larger one so you can see it better. They use the same technology to build big telescopes. . . concave mirrors. So please give us a break. . .please.
|
|