|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 20:34:27 GMT
CO2 does not warm anything. Thats correct it acts like an insulator works so although it is colder it causes the heated object to become warmer.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 21:24:24 GMT
CO2 does not warm anything. Thats correct it acts like an insulator works so although it is colder it causes the heated object to become warmer. As you wish Andrew. Remember that radiation goes in all directions. 20 photons absorbed on one side, and emitted by CO2 will result in a net loss of 10 photons emitted back to the source of said radiation. So in effect, it becomes a net cooling agent because it is not directional.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 22:22:12 GMT
Thats correct it acts like an insulator works so although it is colder it causes the heated object to become warmer. As you wish Andrew. Remember that radiation goes in all directions. 20 photons absorbed on one side, and emitted by CO2 will result in a net loss of 10 photons emitted back to the source of said radiation. So in effect, it becomes a net cooling agent because it is not directional. You seem to be forgetting that the only way for the Earth system to cool is by sending emissions from somewhere in that system to space. How is CO2 going to cause the earth system to become colder by sending emissions to space if the only way for the earth system to cool is by sending emissions to space? meanwhile down welling emissions cause the heated surfaces to become warmer due to the reduction in heat losses
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 22:32:39 GMT
The actual "net" effect of CO2 as a reflecting agent is so small as to not be measurable.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 29, 2016 22:37:45 GMT
The actual "net" effect of CO2 as a reflecting agent is so small as to not be measurable. You need to make your mind up. Just a moment ago it was sending significant emissions to space.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 22:47:11 GMT
The actual "net" effect of CO2 as a reflecting agent is so small as to not be measurable. You need to make your mind up. Just a moment ago it was sending significant emissions to space. Andew: You state significant emissions, I didn't. I explained how it is a radiator. I then explained that the measurement of effect of CO2 is so small as to not be measurable. There was a paper written a couple of years ago, where the fellow thought he was detecting CO2 radiation levels at the surface. When he was forced to use the AH level as part of his measuring experiment, the part he had attributed to CO2 became noise.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 29, 2016 23:06:42 GMT
As you wish Andrew. Remember that radiation goes in all directions. 20 photons absorbed on one side, and emitted by CO2 will result in a net loss of 10 photons emitted back to the source of said radiation. So in effect, it becomes a net cooling agent because it is not directional. You seem to be forgetting that the only way for the Earth system to cool is by sending emissions from somewhere in that system to space. How is CO2 going to cause the earth system to become colder by sending emissions to space if the only way for the earth system to cool is by sending emissions to space? meanwhile down welling emissions cause the heated surfaces to become warmer due to the reduction in heat losses There must be many ways for energy to be lost without it having to go to off the planet, otherwise perpetual energy would be feasible. There must be inefficiencies in the system?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 4:43:06 GMT
You seem to be forgetting that the only way for the Earth system to cool is by sending emissions from somewhere in that system to space. How is CO2 going to cause the earth system to become colder by sending emissions to space if the only way for the earth system to cool is by sending emissions to space? meanwhile down welling emissions cause the heated surfaces to become warmer due to the reduction in heat losses There must be many ways for energy to be lost without it having to go to off the planet, otherwise perpetual energy would be feasible. There must be inefficiencies in the system? One cannot doubt the one way heating effect implied by the popular photon model and greenhouse gases if for no other reason than nobody in recorded history has been able to demonstrate this effect which seems to be a relatively simple exercise. Since conduction so much overwhelms radiation the only exacting thing about the experiment is getting real close with insulation values throughout the experiment. But consider what a 100% IR block implies, a 50% boost in heat, it should have been doable a hundred years ago. What I find fascinating about the model is the implication that less than a perfectly insulated surface cannot be a black body. It seems it would be a simple Engineering curve of loss of the "effective" temperature of the surface as other heat loss flows are allowed to occur. And of course one can never even come really close to perfectly insulating anything so it calls into question the statement that blackbody calculations are good approximations of greybodies. Clearly in Andrews model they are not good approximations. Andrew wants the surface to get hotter than the effective temperature to force heat by radiation out of the atmosphere when all that needs to be done is for the greenhouse gases to warm up to the same temperature as the surface, which in the case of CO2 would warm the atmosphere at most by about 1/2,500th of the amount the CO2 warmed. Big difference but Andrew wants to cling to his model like a cod on a clam. And thats just one way the model could fail. Thats the problem with people that appeal to authority instead of science (confounding the opinions of scientists with science) and want you to prove them wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 8:07:10 GMT
nobody in recorded history has been able to demonstrate this effect which seems to be a relatively simple exercise............. it should have been doable a hundred years ago. The effect was was first demonstrated 316 years ago but was forgotten about until Pictet rediscovered it in 1790. The later experiment created a huge amount of interest at the time because with the known theories of heat it could not be explained. A heated object A will immediately cool when exposed to a distant colder object B. The same cooler but still heated object A will immediately warm when the temperature of the distant cooler object B is raised even when B remains colder than A.
Therefore if the Earths heated surface A is surrounded by a distant environment B measured at 3k it will be colder than it is today. Then if that same heated Earth A is surrounded by a warmer distant environment C it will become warmer even if the distant environment C is colder than the Earths surface A. We are talking about a very very simple idea. Anybody can demonstrate this for themselves using simple equipment and it is an axiomatic consequence of the laws of radiation established over 150 years ago that were very largely developed as a result of Pictets experiment and the revolution in ideas about heat that it created.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 20:24:42 GMT
nobody in recorded history has been able to demonstrate this effect which seems to be a relatively simple exercise............. it should have been doable a hundred years ago. The effect was was first demonstrated 316 years ago but was forgotten about until Pictet rediscovered it in 1790. The later experiment created a huge amount of interest at the time because with the known theories of heat it could not be explained. A heated object A will immediately cool when exposed to a distant colder object B. The same cooler but still heated object A will immediately warm when the temperature of the distant cooler object B is raised even when B remains colder than A.
Therefore if the Earths heated surface A is surrounded by a distant environment B measured at 3k it will be colder than it is today. Then if that same heated Earth A is surrounded by a warmer distant environment C it will become warmer even if the distant environment C is colder than the Earths surface A. We are talking about a very very simple idea. Anybody can demonstrate this for themselves using simple equipment and it is an axiomatic consequence of the laws of radiation established over 150 years ago that were very largely developed as a result of Pictets experiment and the revolution in ideas about heat that it created. Its not as simple of an experiment as you seem to believe. You should read the new thread I created and make sure any experiment attempted correctly identifies the correct steady state temperature. Only through such an experiment when not using a purely radiant, untrapped, heat source can the correct diagram be confirmed. I have acknowledge that a heat source whose temperature will change based upon that source being trapped, like inside a glass lightbulb, the heat source will heat. We know in the world experiment what happens on earth is not going to warm the sun and while the earths surface is trapped its not a heat generator all by itself. I merely want to see the experiment that provides the correct answer and it can only be done in space or a very large vacuum chamber with negligible heat trapping capability for the scale of the experiment. My problem is if I am going to debate this issue I need carefully defined what I am debating against.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 6:26:29 GMT
Only through...... an experiment when not using a purely radiant, untrapped, heat source can the correct diagram be confirmed. [/quote] What on earth does that sentence mean???
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2016 8:14:27 GMT
Its not as simple of an experiment as you seem to believe. You should read the new thread I created and make sure any experiment attempted correctly identifies the correct steady state temperature. Only through such an experiment when not using a purely radiant, untrapped, heat source can the correct diagram be confirmed. I have acknowledge that a heat source whose temperature will change based upon that source being trapped, like inside a glass lightbulb, the heat source will heat. We know in the world experiment what happens on earth is not going to warm the sun and while the earths surface is trapped its not a heat generator all by itself. I merely want to see the experiment that provides the correct answer and it can only be done in space or a very large vacuum chamber with negligible heat trapping capability for the scale of the experiment. My problem is if I am going to debate this issue I need carefully defined what I am debating against. The presence of the Earth in the Solar system causes the Sun to be hotter than it otherwise would be or the laws of physics are wrong. What is your point this time? ? You are arguing about things that were settled hundreds of years ago. If you replace the walls of a room filled with dry air at a uniform temperature of 22C with walls at 15C a thermometer in the center of the room is going to detect the difference 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 Replacing the 22C walls would then cause the thermometer to rise back towards 22C. Say 21.5C. While the walls and air also become 21.C 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.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 8:55:00 GMT
The presence of the Earth in the Solar system causes the Sun to be hotter than it otherwise would be or the laws of physics are wrong. What is your point this time? ? You are arguing about things that were settled hundreds of years ago. If you replace the walls of a room filled with dry air at a uniform temperature of 22C with walls at 15C a thermometer in the center of the room is going to detect the difference 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 Replacing the 22C walls would then cause the thermometer to rise back towards 22C. Say 21.5C. While the walls and air also become 21.C 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.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2016 9:25:06 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. If you can falsify this you will get a nobel prize. falsify what?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 9:31:48 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. If you can falsify this you will get a nobel prize. falsify what? 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
|
|