|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 13:12:03 GMT
I know Claes Johnson.
The argument at the moment is you claimed this:
>>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object
If you can prove that you will get another Nobel prize
Who are you claiming demonstrated it?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 19:27:32 GMT
I know Claes Johnson. The argument at the moment is you claimed this: >>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object If you can prove that you will get another Nobel prize Who are you claiming demonstrated it? One does not need to prove it precisely but one can show that a 90% reflective or transparent object will warm to a temperature warmer than the air temperature. The most popular one is two pans one highly reflective and the other black. If you want to prove it without hard to calculate convection effects you are going to need an experiment in space or at a minimum in a very expensive vacuum chamber. But unless you can come up with an explanation why a reflective surface that should not warm to more that minus60C on the basis of the light it absorbs except by conduction from the air you need to come up with another reason why.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 19:40:22 GMT
So the argument at the moment is you claimed this:
>>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object
Why in Gods name are you claiming that is true??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 19:48:14 GMT
Bottom line is my physics education has been sparse and thats actually probably an advantage since I avoided being inculcated into the dogmas of insider physics.
My other education in philosophy, logic, and construction (particularily popular solar heating systems) and a lot of experience using all my education for many decades has created an intuitive idea of how radiation and heat works. I can read Maxwell and Boltzmann and others and find no inconsistencies with my intuitive view.
Unfortunately, I have paid too little attention to the wave theory. I sense that one could have more difficult problems to solve. But it also has implications of solar variation explaining a lot more. It also has implications of water vapor being a lot more important than CO2 than the wattage figures suggest since solar does a better job absorbing high frequency IR.
But since one cannot tax the sun nor the oceans, its going to take a long time to get the fukking rent seeking science community off the john shiiting on all of the rest of us, especially the turncoats among them, like Claes.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 19:55:22 GMT
the turncoats among them, like Claes. Do you know when he turned?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 20:08:41 GMT
What are you describing here? An object being radiatively heated that becomes hotter than air? or something more subtle?? As i said before a thermometer in air cannot be used as a measure of true air temperature unless you construct a purpose built gadget. So what do you think of the Stevenson screens? Seems to at least partially to address the issue. >>>If you want to prove it without hard to calculate convection effects you are going to need an experiment in space or at a minimum in a very expensive vacuum chamber. But unless you can come up with an explanation why a reflective surface that should not warm to more that minus60C on the basis of the light it absorbs except by conduction from the air you need to come up with another reason why. What are you talking about there? I totally have no idea what that is describing. I am talking about a shiny pan absorbing little radiation getting hotter than the air. >>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object What actually are you describing there? Perhaps you do not mean it to read like that? You obviously know the earth does not warm to the temperature of the sun. 1. What surface are you talking about?? 2. What actually is the 'hot radiating object'?? Should say once again as I have said repeatedly in this thread "assuming a field of view of unity". It gets pretty tiresome to be held by some jerk to having to reeducate him over and over again. With you having a discussion is almost tantamount to writing legislation from scratch where every single point must be addressed anew. At least in writing legislation one can put in a single paragraph that applies such a parameter to everything within the law. So if you please just assume that the field of view parameter applies to any radiation steady state/equilibrium calculation I talk about please so I don't have to repeat it endlessly for your benefit.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 20:15:21 GMT
p.s. If you would like to adopt the wave mechanics point of view of radiation energy transfer. I can acknowledge that the field of view parameter might not apply to the inverse square law. But thats an entirely different discussion and certainly would seem to scoop up solar variation into a whole new discussion as well. Unfortunately I have not had sufficient time thinking about wave mechanics as the third idea of difference in potential might explain a lot about the duality problem. But quite honestly I have not spent anytime pondering it in that light instead of wasting time on the photon theory of discrete little packets of defined energy. Perhaps the duality problem is really a triangular problem.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 20:22:00 GMT
So the argument at the moment is you claimed this:
>>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object
Why in Gods name are you claiming that is true??
er...are you saying the surface is inside the heating object??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 21:09:56 GMT
So the argument at the moment is you claimed this: >>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object Why in Gods name are you claiming that is true?? er...are you saying the surface is inside the heating object?? Lets just say I favor the above over the greenhouse theory you have described because the Woods Experiment showed no warming from trapping IR and the shiny pan vs black pan experiment does show warming in the shiny pan. I realize that treating it as a thought experiment only its as weak as your greenhouse theory. But thats the case with all thought experiments. Which of course I have been telling you this for at least 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 21:29:34 GMT
So the argument at the moment is you claimed this: >>>>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object Why in Gods name are you claiming that is true?? er...are you saying the surface is inside the heating object?? Lets just say I favor the above over the greenhouse theory you have described because the Woods Experiment showed no warming from trapping IR and the shiny pan vs black pan experiment does show warming in the shiny pan. I realize that treating it as a thought experiment only its as weak as your greenhouse theory. But thats the case with all thought experiments. Which of course I have been telling you this for at least 4 years. So you are talking about a surface entirely inside a hot object.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 22:15:20 GMT
Lets just say I favor the above over the greenhouse theory you have described because the Woods Experiment showed no warming from trapping IR and the shiny pan vs black pan experiment does show warming in the shiny pan. I realize that treating it as a thought experiment only its as weak as your greenhouse theory. But thats the case with all thought experiments. Which of course I have been telling you this for at least 4 years. So you are talking about a surface entirely inside a hot object. Yeah with the heating force outside of the object. Cold steel, hot air, and a sun.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 2, 2016 22:29:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 22:48:27 GMT
I recall years ago where I found a huge sampling error problem in a national database. I immediately started making waves about it. It was really wild but not one person challenged my finding but it was a tidal wave of opposition to doing anything about it because so many people had built their careers on it and changing the base approach would have cause many years of work of people building edifices on a shaky foundation would see all they had built and their primary claim to continued access to funds fall down as if by an earthquake. Or at least they thought that would be the result. Actually it did get totally torn down and was rebuilt almost entirely on a new foundation with new names and there were casualties but not anywhere near as bad as folks thought because by virtue of spending so many years working with the basic issue they had built an enormous amount of institutional knowledge and had an enormous database in their heads of what did not work. The human mind is an amazing thing. It goes far beyond anything we can do in mathematics and the physical sciences. Its true with just about anything. Corporate restructuring really entails firing top management and creating and inculcating a new culture in the bottom levels of the organization. The middle management levels get a mixture of firings and inculcation. Layoffs at the bottom level is sometimes necessary for cashflow purposes but its absolutely the last thing you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 6:57:01 GMT
So you are talking about a surface entirely inside a hot object. Yeah with the heating force outside of the object. Cold steel, hot air, and a sun. So following on from Icefishers law >>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object The cold steel and hot air are inside the Sun
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 3, 2016 14:30:35 GMT
Yeah with the heating force outside of the object. Cold steel, hot air, and a sun. So following on from Icefishers law >>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object The cold steel and hot air are inside the Sun inside the sphere of influence of the sun.
|
|