|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 23:44:43 GMT
Andrew: The stop calling is the bloody greenhouse effect! It is ACTUALLY a MASS equation! For about two years here i was calling it the so called greenhouse effect. It sounds a bit pompous when nobody else is making the distinction. I also assumed that anybody here following climate science would know anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 23:52:51 GMT
I am so old, and have been reading/studying atmosphere for so long, that I well remember when ALL radiation equations were BASED on MASS. When science ACTUALLY used to be science and not some stupid cliche. You are about the same age as me. I cannot recall seeing radiation described in terms of mass other than light has a dual nature where it is like a particle and it is like a wave. radiation is energy rather than mass. Anyway it does not matter. We are talking here about ideas that were being discussed 200 years ago when it became widely known that a distant pile of ice could cause a thermometer at the focus of a concave mirror to be colder than the room temperature. That experiment then led to the thermodynamics as we know it today. People had to think long and hard as to why the thermometer immediately fell in temperature when surrounded by air and a mirror that were at room temperature
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 23:54:58 GMT
I am so old, and have been reading/studying atmosphere for so long, that I well remember when ALL radiation equations were BASED on MASS. When science ACTUALLY used to be science and not some stupid cliche. You are about the same age as me. I cannot recall seeing radiation described in terms of mass other than light has a dual nature where it is like a particle and it is like a wave. radiation is energy rather than mass. Anyway it does not matter. We are talking here about ideas that were being discussed 224 years ago when it became widely known that a distant pile of ice could cause a thermometer at the focus of a concave mirror to be colder than the room temperature. That experiment then led to the thermodynamics as we know it today. People had to think long and hard as to why the thermometer immediately fell in temperature when surrounded by air and a mirror that were at room temperature
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 23:55:46 GMT
Andrew: It is one of my pet peeves. A greenhouse is an enclosed system. Earth is NOT an enclosed system. IN FACT, the atmosphere has more density at different areas of the earth.
One of the reasons the Arctic is such an effective loss of heat. The atmosphere is light.
I have been trying to follow this and the other threads.
I got fed up...sorry.
I have no clue what you are trying to prove nor disprove.
I know you are a smart feller, normally well mannered. Same can be said of Icefisher. But you have both lost the thought process of what you thought you were either proving or disproving.
I know one thing for sure, you can't IGNORE the mass balance of the atmosphere in your equations! I know that is the way that a lot of scientists now do it, but from a physics point, they would be laughed out of class.
Prof Lindzen understands this, but the current bunch appear to have never taken physics.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 23:56:40 GMT
Yes, Andrew, but MASS has a very demonstrated effect of net radiation equations!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 0:00:28 GMT
You HAVE to have mass involved to measure radiation.
Without mass, radiation is a beam of light that travels forever.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 0:01:45 GMT
Andrew: It is one of my pet peeves. A greenhouse is an enclosed system. Earth is NOT an enclosed system. IN FACT, the atmosphere has more density at different areas of the earth. One of the reasons the Arctic is such an effective loss of heat. The atmosphere is light. I have been trying to follow this and the other threads. I got fed up...sorry. I have no clue what you are trying to prove nor disprove. I know you are a smart feller, normally well mannered. Same can be said of Icefisher. But you have both lost the thought process of what you thought you were either proving or disproving. I know one thing for sure, you can't IGNORE the mass balance of the atmosphere in your equations! I know that is the way that a lot of scientists now do it, but from a physics point, they would be laughed out of class. Prof Lindzen understands this, but the current bunch appear to have never taken physics. All I have been talking about is an idea. Where in reality if objects are radiatively coupled and at a distance from each other if you warm the cold object then the heated object becomes warmer. That factual observation is shown pictorially by those engineers net radiation heat loss curves I have no idea why Icefisher is objecting. i am not sure if he is playing games, is unwell or something else.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 0:05:21 GMT
You HAVE to have mass involved to measure radiation. Without mass, radiation is a beam of light that travels forever. can we please focus on the fridge thought experiment and move this forwards? Can you please look at my answers on backradiation and so forth
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 0:07:51 GMT
Andrew isn't a moron. He has a mental block that will eventually dissolve. In time, he will warm up to understand that CO2 is not much of anything. I am only interested in why you are claiming the greenhouse effect cannot work when it is a very simple idea. If you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation then keep out of it. I am tired of you entering threads causing a diversion and then leaving before i have worked out why on Earth you have said what you have said. You have done this time and time again. Forget about CO2. I am not a f**k**g AGW warmist so dont treat me like one. I am wanting to know why you are saying that backradiation has nothing to do with the fridge thought experiment Sorry for calling you a Moron. Andrew. Sigurdur is right. And Sigurdur is contributing. You are just slamming him because he is not helping you. Eventually you will get it. I have long said what you are stuck on is the photon theory idea of heat transfer. I don't think there is an physical evidence of its existence. And there is no evidence of a medium in space that would support a "flow" theory either. The truth of the greenhouse theory does not lie in arguments and numerological models attempting to depict it. Simple idea, yes! Slippery? Much more so. This problem can only be solved by discovering other causes for the atmosphere warmth and then finding which fits the pause better. To see the other side of the coin you have to 1) think out a flow theory, similar to the other electromagnetic forces of electricity, magnetism, radio waves, microwaves, and sound. Light in the photon theory remains the black sheep of the family and many deep thinkers on this think that someday that problem will be resolved. 2) you probably have to accept that its possible other physical processes could be responsible for the warming we see. I naturally reject the idea of greenhouse gases being the cause because I have done a lot of insulation work to achieve such aims and it is just anathema to me that reducing insulation is going to create warming and thats the exact thing that is going on in your model as you move from the blackbody theories of the surface to greybody theories of greenhouse gases. Its MC Escher at work! At least I acknowledge I could be wrong. The idea is simple and its pretty elegant until you find that hot surfaces are more readily warmed than cold surfaces in the interchange between cold grey bodies and the black body surface. Its more slippery than hell but I remember my first glance at MC Escher and it took quite a while to actually locate the trick he employs (actally its reported that a guy named Penrose first invented it) Such a subtle change exists in the greenhouse model in how the grey body virtual surface of the gas is treated differently that the surface solar radiation interface. Almost all radiation knowledge operates from blackbody assumptions. Selective surfaces, Kirchoffs Law, temperture balances. These are all well tested if not completely documented in nature effects of radiation. But I do not see anything in the literature that specifies a grey body will stop warming toward an equal temperature of the warmer body except in cases of unmatched fields of view. There is a mismatch in the field of view of the surface to the atmosphere but it is so small its not going to amount to anything significant. The two kinds of bodies (black and grey) are computed differently in the model for the gas interface than for the surface interface. I have never seen any justification for that in science. It seems to be pure numerology attached to a world view that has not be proven. Its not considered numerology by mainstream science but then mainstream science in the 16th century did not consider the geocentric theory as numerology either. I have asked you to try to look at this as flows than as dictated by your photon cartoons and you resist doing that. If you did you would at least then comprehend some basis for some doubt. Even Spencer acknowledges that the greenhouse effect is not 100% known to be true. Though I acknowledge that Spencer still much favors the traditional theory of light that was taught to me in school and thats understandable.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 0:15:36 GMT
If you are unable to answer a simple question of mine as to why you are unable to produce an understandable reason why you are objecting to the green house idea I have totally no interest in reading your long pieces of text. As far as i can see you are deliberately being evasive. You can never be pinned down. You always obfuscate misdirect cheat and do whatever you can to avoid giving me reasons written in understandable English why you are objecting to the green house idea. This thread is a classic example. You began relentlessly and very childishly baiting me for no purpose and no reason. As far as i can see you are a cheat and a liar who will do anything to keep up appearances where you seem to think you are some kind of big cheese with big ideas and new thinking. A child can understand this topic. As soon as i pin you down you produces pages and pages of gibberish no person on Earth can understand and I am sure now you do that deliberately just to cheat your way forwards.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 1:08:55 GMT
Andrew: A greenhouse is simple, our atmosphere isn't.
Remove the cover of a greenhouse, and the dynamics totally change.
Remember, our atmosphere is not a greenhouse in any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 1:09:33 GMT
At least the tone has become more civil....thank you both for that. I am sure most readers of the board would echo my thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 1:14:08 GMT
Andrew: A greenhouse is simple, our atmosphere isn't. Remove the cover of a greenhouse, and the dynamics totally change. Remember, our atmosphere is not a greenhouse in any stretch of the imagination. Sigurdur I made it totally clear to you that I know that the earth system does not function like a greenhouse. why do you insist on entering these threads and then claim you have not got the time or energy or inclination to explain to me some of the strange things you say in these threads? Either focus on the topic at hand or find somewhere else to cause mayhem
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 1:24:06 GMT
At least the tone has become more civil....thank you both for that. I am sure most readers of the board would echo my thanks. You have a funny version of what civility means. You seem to think you can imply i am stupid while you are some kind of superior being able to know more about QE than I can when it is clear you did not have the slightly clue of what you were talking about. All through that QE saga you kept up this passive aggressive stance where it is clear you were not being polite towards me. And once again i very much doubt i will ever pin you down on the strange things you say.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 1:26:29 GMT
Hey, I got you and Icefisher to begin to be civil again!
I also don't say strange things.
I am glad that you have clarified that you KNOW the earth system does not function like a greenhouse!
With that in mind, what has been the point of the discussion?
Cause ya see, I have been lost as it appears that you are trying to state a heat transfer in a closed environment somehow is applicable to the earth's atmosphere.
It isn't.
|
|