Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thanks for the assist...but the puck won`t score a goal, because like Roy he calls a "time out" when he`s about to loose the "hockey stick" game..and the goal keeper is out to lunch...permanently.
Then when the ref puts the puck back in the game, Roy and his the Virginias want to play mini golf instead which does not go for a full 3 ( climate decade) game periods and overtime but only for as long as it suits them, say a bad 24 hour period for New Orleans or New York and the global arena is reduced to a much smaller recent local "severe weather event"....due to "GLOBAL warming"
You should think that IanC would have grasped the concept when I posted how the solar refrigerators work and what limits them when the rate of cooling is diminished...as it is when the parabolic mirror looks at a tree, a building or a cloud. Then You can`t cool water to a lower temperature as the IR radiation source the mirror captured.
As if the world wide engineering community that is clever enough to build autonomous drones that can take out a target on another continent or land autonomous robot/vehicles that land on Mars would not be clever enough to design a heating system that can heat a house with a colder object like Roy claims.
So Ian why don`t You save Yourself a lot of money,...never mind solar or wind power...just point a large parabolic mirror towards the outside wall of Your neighbor`s house facing Your own and enjoy the free "back radiation" heat.
Ian, You wanna know why engineers don`t waste their time with Spencer`s "back radiation photons"...?
Because even a Virginia would have realized that a +100 C hot "black body" is no longer the same dark black body that was "dark" speak cold enough before it became hot and when it could still absorb the photons at the wavelengths which come from a "blacker" (speak colder) body.
The hotter, less dark, less black lesser of a black body it gets the larger the albedo and it begins reflecting everything that is emitted by a colder and still blacker black body..heat flows from hot to cold...and only from cold to hot in people`s minds which are too feeble to understand what a theoretical physics black body is supposed to be to, if You want it to conform to a Planck`s frequency profile.
The only "black body" that exhibits a radiation frequency profile as Planck`s is a mass less cavity with a small enough cavity which limits the radiation that can exit this cavity so that the cavity is at a thermal equilibrium state !
It`s no longer a Planck`s radiation profile black body just as soon as You allow it to dissipate radiation which has to have an albedo of 0 as in ZERO !!
A sphere is the exact opposite of a cavity and more so a sphere made from materials that expend absorbed energy by expansion, evaporation, phase changes , like ice melting, photo chemical processes like plant growth. All considered, even a sphere with a 30 % "average" albedo which in itself is a cheat more than twice as it would take to nullify even Spencer`s crap radiation.
So don`t even think, that every engineer of our times is dumb enough to go along with an IPCC carbon tax without a fight...
Up till now they confined their activity to debunk quacks like Roy,...
If Roy thinks he had it bad when he was bombarded by some of the engineers that bothered to read his stupid blogs...wait what will happen if Obamama`s nanny state goes lock step with the U.N. and forces everyone, all these engineers included , to pay a Carbon tax...then You ain`t seen nothin` yet
But Ian still believes Roy that You could boil a cup of water if You point the solar fridge at a tree which radiates a say +10 C Planck frequency profile.
[
Latour's letter goes off the rails right from the beginning.
Latour's letter goes off the rails right from the beginning.
His statement This is because the second plate reduced the rate at which the first plate was losing energy. is provably false. And the answer to his subsequent question in parentheses is: no. His statement Again, the reason the heated plate became even hotter is that the second plate has, in effect, insulated the first plate from its cold surroundings, keeping it warmer than if the second plate was not there. is not true.
If the claim were true, the total surroundings, including cooler plate, would receive more radiation from T difference = 160 150 = 10F and the chiller chamber temperature would increase to T > 0, even if the portion of surroundings blocked by the cool plate gets colder. The rest gets warmer. The chiller would have to remove more heat to maintain 0, but input electrical energy to the 150 plate is constant, so this requires creation of energy. The 100 plate does not insulate the 150 plate from all 0 surroundings.
the increased radiation into the available walls of the thermos from the warmer surfaces exactly matches the decreased radiation into the walls of the thermos that are in 'shadow'.
SSDD- I pointed out where I thought Latour made his first and most critical mistake and all you say in rebuttal is ' no he didnt'. dont you ever have a thought? an idea that you want to express?
SSDD- I pointed out where I thought Latour made his first and most critical mistake and all you say in rebuttal is ' no he didnt'. dont you ever have a thought? an idea that you want to express?
Here is an idea for you Ian. You started with a failed mind experiment. You attempted to defend it and failed. The further you go into it, the more wrong you get. But hey, you believe what you want even if there doesn't exist a single shred of actual evidence to support it. You have been doing exactly that for this long, may as well ride your mistake right to the very end. Have fun.
still making up crazy strawmen, eh?
how exactly am I suppose to have a dialogue with someone who continually puts up nonsense ideas and attributes them to me? are you still pissed that I showed how your solar fridge/oven supported my way of thinking, not yours?But Ian still believes Roy that You could boil a cup of water if You point the solar fridge at a tree which radiates a say +10 C Planck frequency profile.
do you really not understand the concept of first principles? if you were around in Newton's time you would have argued against "bodies in motion tend to stay in motion" just because you dont find frictionless examples.
Or how You concluded that I`m "pissed off"...? Why should I be pissed off ?are you still pissed that I showed how your solar fridge/oven supported my way of thinking, not yours?
So according to the kooks, the last century of physics is all completely wrong.
Why? Because their political cult has declared it must be so. And they're the only one's who see it. All those egghead scientists are just soooooo stupid.
Good luck with that.
The last 40 years or so of atmospheric "physics" is wrong. Atmospheric physics ie climate science has deviated from classical physics. You won't find backradiation being taught in classical physics.
I would not know how to "put" a frog into a "microwave" or any other wave for that matter.Hey polarbear, if you'd like to see a cooler object make a warmer object even warmer, stick a frog in a microwave and press start.
hahahaha. apparently you have nothing and arent willing to even try. thanks for playing. bye
Classical physics isn't sufficient to describe atmospheric processes. You need something called "quantum physics". Things like absorption cross sections are fundamentally quantum phenomena and cannot be described by classical physics.
still making up crazy strawmen, eh?
how exactly am I suppose to have a dialogue with someone who continually puts up nonsense ideas and attributes them to me? are you still pissed that I showed how your solar fridge/oven supported my way of thinking, not yours?But Ian still believes Roy that You could boil a cup of water if You point the solar fridge at a tree which radiates a say +10 C Planck frequency profile.
do you really not understand the concept of first principles? if you were around in Newton's time you would have argued against "bodies in motion tend to stay in motion" just because you dont find frictionless examples.
Tell me Ian, how did the solar fridge support Your believe...I can`t go along with "Your thinking" because You did not think and You are the one who does not understand what`s up and You sure as shit have no idea "what I would have said if I were ...". Besides,....when I started going to school the world was way past Newton and well into quantum physics.
It`s You that is still stuck in a pre-Newton believe system and I`m sure that your entire "knowledge" of physics is the kind of crap you dig up from "climate science" blogs....like Roy`s.
If You know what other people would have said... if they were...Then tell me what Roy would have saidif he were around in Newton's time
But please do tell me....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]
How you managed to come to that conclusion if you could understand what`s going on in a solar fridge ?
Or how You concluded that I`m "pissed off"...? Why should I be pissed off ?are you still pissed that I showed how your solar fridge/oven supported my way of thinking, not yours?
If I were "Vriginia`s" or Your daddy and would have to pay the bill for all the "extra special" tutoring it would take to get you past a simple high school exam, then I`ld be pissed off
polarbear's experiment-
Quote:
A solar oven is designed to capture solar energy to heat something to a higher temperature than the surrounding air. You put an object in a mirrored box with a glass lid. Radiation comes in, reflects, and strikes the object in the box, warming it up. Basically, the object sees more light from the sun than it otherwise would.
But suppose we turned this idea around. If you put an object in the solar oven but replace the top with something that transmits infrared.
Then we put the box out at night and point it at open sky.
What happens? It makes a refrigeratora space refrigerator. The object cools to a lower temperature than the surrounding air!
why are you presenting examples to support my side? the low emissivity of the mirrors, coupled with the easy egress of radiation from all sides of the object will of course allow it to become cooler. that's the point! you have effectively increased the radiating surface, and created a virtual cooler environment by the use of mirrors to send most of the radiation straight out in the coldest direction.
this is the reverse of Spencer's experiment. instead of adding a plate to increase the first object's temperature, you are subtracting a plate in a virtual way to decrease its temperature. thanks for the help but I am not sure why you did it.
hahahaha. apparently you have nothing and arent willing to even try. thanks for playing. bye
It is you who are playing Ian, but it's interesting to watch. Roy's experiment failed miserably and was torn to little pieces by people who know a hell of a lot more on the topic than I do. It is interesting to see someone attempt to defend something that has already completely failed....going off on this tangent or that tangent not getting that every tangent that leads off the basic failure is also going to be a failure.
It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures. That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens. No matter how you twist it, turn it, slice it, or dice it, you are talking about a perpetual motion machine. Dress it up however you like, but you are still just putting lipstick on a pig.
Radiative heat transfer
The radiative heat transfer from one surface to another is equal to the radiation entering the first surface from the other, minus the radiation leaving the first surface.
It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures. That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens. No matter how you twist it, turn it, slice it, or dice it, you are talking about a perpetual motion machine. Dress it up however you like, but you are still just putting lipstick on a pig.
I would not know how to "put" a frog into a "microwave" or any other wave for that matter.Hey polarbear, if you'd like to see a cooler object make a warmer object even warmer, stick a frog in a microwave and press start.
But while a frog is watching, sticking a colder than you cattle prod up your ass which is plugged in where you plug in your microwave oven where you fry frogs...that would make You look a lot like your avatar...which looks dumber than any frog you stuck in your micro wave oven.
That "doo pah poo" coming out of your mouth is that "African American culture" pigeon English talk for shit or just plain ape culture?
It`s no wonder stupidity has gone rampant because people like You who use micro wave ovens to get their jollies torturing frogs do not wind up where they should,.. in these ovens
By the way do You know what the frog answered to the vet when he was asked what that thing which looked exactly like you came to be on the frog`s ass:
The frog answered: "I don`t know it started out as a smaller wart on my ass"
Classical physics isn't sufficient to describe atmospheric processes. You need something called "quantum physics". Things like absorption cross sections are fundamentally quantum phenomena and cannot be described by classical physics.
As far as the climate scam goes, we are still just talking about energy transfer and you don't need quantum physics to describe energy transfer. I get that you have to "try" to go somewhere else in an attempt to support the scam, but only the truely deluded are buying.
It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures. That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens.
