In Support of the A in AGW

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

I suppose you aren't aware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees and still, parabolic reflectors can concentrate that light and boil water or start fires....but back radiation can't be collected or measured till the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...which means that it is not back radiation at all.

This is why they use directional aiming units on big solar projects, keeping the panels at right angles too incoming solar radiation. This increases their collection to about 9 hours a day rather than 4-6 hours. A 360W panel operating at just 30% is about 100W. A 260W loss over rated potential.

This is easily measured by placing an amp meter on the outputs of a panel and rotating the panel from right angle to 60 degrees and watching how the output falls. This is simple high school physics.

 

[mamooth]

No hairball...it seems that only you were unaware of it...

So first, you're running from your kook claim that sunlight magically becomes diffuse only when beyond 30 degrees.

And second, you're using a blatant equivocation fallacy to back your new claims. That is, you're deliberately confusing two different meanings of "diffuse".

Meaning A -- "not parallel, coming in from all directions."

Meaning B -- "not highly concentrated, spread out"

You declare since sunlight qualifies as "diffuse" under meaning "B", it also qualifies as "diffuse" under meaning "A". Bzzzt, invalid, totally dishonest, you fail.

Stop trying to claim rays of direct sunlight aren't parallel. You're plunging to new depths of dishonesty and stupidity here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No hairball...it seems that only you were unaware of it...

So first, you're running from your kook claim that sunlight magically becomes diffuse only when beyond 30 degrees.

And second, you're using a blatant equivocation fallacy to back your new claims. That is, you're deliberately confusing two different meanings of "diffuse".

Meaning A -- "not parallel, coming in from all directions."

Meaning B -- "not highly concentrated, spread out"

You declare since sunlight qualifies as "diffuse" under meaning "B", it also qualifies as "diffuse" under meaning "A". Bzzzt, invalid, totally dishonest, you fail.

Stop trying to claim rays of direct sunlight aren't parallel. You're plunging to new depths of dishonesty and stupidity here.

You dont have a dam clue do you?

 

[mamooth]

Billy, be specific. Are you also jumping on SSDD's moron wagon and specifically claiming that incoming direct sunlight isn't traveling in parallel rays?

 

[jc456]

Billy, be specific. Are you also jumping on SSDD's moron wagon and specifically claiming that incoming direct sunlight isn't traveling in parallel rays?

I guess you don't know solar panels are positioned for a reason. WOW

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

I suppose you aren't aware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees and still, parabolic reflectors can concentrate that light and boil water or start fires....but back radiation can't be collected or measured till the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...which means that it is not back radiation at all.

What your references say is that sunlight is diffuse. They are referring to the fact that the sky is blue everywhere because of the sun. That is what diffuse means in that context. One reference also says that the sun itself is diffuse. That means the direct sun energy is spread out over the ball at around 5 degrees. There is quite a difference in the energy per solid angle in the blue diffuse section versus the sun surface.

Parabolic reflectors could start a fire when aimed at the sun no matter where it is in the sky. But if the reflector is aimed at the diffuse part (ie blue sky) there is not enough energy to start a fire.

Again you are wrong about back radiation not being observed. Thermal radiation has in fact been measured by detectors that are warmer than the source. Every scientist knows that.

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...the atmosphere may act as a metaphorical blanket, but CO2 and all radiative gasses except water vapor are holes in that blanket..

What do you mean by radiative gasses. CO2 diffuses radiation at it resonant wavelengths. That means at those wavelengths GHGs are the blanket and the wavelengths not at resonance are the holes. If that is what you mean, then why do you think water vapor is an exception. It also diffuses IR radiation in the same way that all other GHGs diffuse radiation.

 

[IanC]

Solar insulation is diffuse? Riiiight.

Try staring at that five degree yellow globe for a while, and tell me it's no different than any other patch of the sky.

Hahahaha

 

[mamooth]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

It's not so much that they're crazy. It's that they're narcissists who are psychologically incapable of admitting to making a mistake. They all know sunlight does indeed come from the sun. However, they've painted themselves into a corner. If they say sunlight comes from the sun, they have to admit to their previous mistake. So rather than admit they were stupid before, they've started digging down into a much deeper stupid hole.

 

[Wuwei]

These guys and their diffuse radiation remind me of a quote by an ancient astronomer hundreds of years ago.

"The moon is more important than the sun because the moon can illuminate the earth at night. The sun only appears in the daytime when it is light anyway.
​

I'm trying to think who has more wisdom - those guys on this board, or the old astronomer.

 

[Olde Europe]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black. Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.

 

[jc456]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

I suppose you aren't aware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees and still, parabolic reflectors can concentrate that light and boil water or start fires....but back radiation can't be collected or measured till the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...which means that it is not back radiation at all.

What your references say is that sunlight is diffuse. They are referring to the fact that the sky is blue everywhere because of the sun. That is what diffuse means in that context. One reference also says that the sun itself is diffuse. That means the direct sun energy is spread out over the ball at around 5 degrees. There is quite a difference in the energy per solid angle in the blue diffuse section versus the sun surface.

Parabolic reflectors could start a fire when aimed at the sun no matter where it is in the sky. But if the reflector is aimed at the diffuse part (ie blue sky) there is not enough energy to start a fire.

Again you are wrong about back radiation not being observed. Thermal radiation has in fact been measured by detectors that are warmer than the source. Every scientist knows that.

Post it

 

[jc456]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

It's not so much that they're crazy. It's that they're narcissists who are psychologically incapable of admitting to making a mistake. They all know sunlight does indeed come from the sun. However, they've painted themselves into a corner. If they say sunlight comes from the sun, they have to admit to their previous mistake. So rather than admit they were stupid before, they've started digging down into a much deeper stupid hole.

Wrong, you didn't answer why the solar panels have to be a specific angle?

 

[jc456]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black. Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.

Uh oh

 

[Billy_Bob]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black. Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.

Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent. Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases.. Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.

 

[IanC]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black. Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.

Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent. Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases.. Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.

Do you have a Cliff Clavin app on your phone, or do you think up that nonsensical bafflegab by yourself?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black. Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.

Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent. Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases.. Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.

Do you have a Cliff Clavin app on your phone, or do you think up that nonsensical bafflegab by yourself?

You really dont know much about photon transmission.

 

[mamooth]

Wrong, you didn't answer why the solar panels have to be a specific angle?

Because the non-diffuse sunlight is arriving at that angle.

It's not rocket science, and it's funny how you fail to understand such a simple thing. If sunlight was "diffuse", it would be arriving from every angle, and it wouldn't much matter what angle the panel was at. Reality really smacks down your insane theory.

 

[mamooth]

Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent.

I'm pretty certain nobody in the universe has ever used such a bizarre definition of "diffuse" before. Can you show us the reference you took it from?

Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases..

Well, yes, but that has nothing to with "diffuse". It has to do with less photons striking the surface when you angle it away from perpendicular to the direction of the sunlight.

Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.

Your whole dishonest argument here rests on the peculiarities of the English language, which assigns multiple definitions to "diffuse". If we were using a language that had a separate word for each definition, you'd have no argument, which means your argument is trash.

Here's a thought. Skip the word "diffuse". Just stick with the descriptions.

Backradiation comes from points scattered across the whole sky, so it can't be focused by a parabolic reflector.

Sunlight comes from a near-point source and arrives in parallel rays, so it can be focused by a parabolic reflector.

The solar oven can only focus parallel rays. It can focus sunlight. It can't focus backradiation, so almost no energy comes in when you point it at the empty sky. Meanwhile, the water placed at the focal point inside radiates in all directions, but that radiation is shaped by the reflector into a parallel beam that exits the oven. More energy goes out than in, so the water freezes.

Clearer now? Now, try to answer without deliberately confusing the issue by jumping between different definitions of "diffuse". Don't use that word at all.

 

[SSDD]

So the topic of this thread is the lack of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW....all the deflection in the world on all the possible topics is not going to make data that doesn't exist suddenly spring into existence...