#ourocean2014

[Crick]

Fundamentally dishonest and stupid beyond belief.

 

[SSDD]

Fundamentally dishonest and stupid beyond belief.

Why yes you are. Good that you can admit it...not really necessary though as everyone already knew.

 

[Crick]

Like a fucking 8 year old.

 

[SSDD]

Like a fucking 8 year old.

Once again, yes you are. Any more stupid comments?

 

[Crick]

Not yet, but I'm sure something will come to me.

 

[SSDD]

Not yet, but I'm sure something will come to me.

No doubt.

 

[Crick]

You've been shown, observed, measured examples. You try to weasel your way around them. You don't succeed, but you won't admit it. How many folks on your side of the AGW argument stick up for you and your bizarre concepts of basic physics? Ian? No. FCT? No. Anyone? No.

 

[SSDD]

You've been shown, observed, measured examples. You try to weasel your way around them. You don't succeed, but you won't admit it. How many folks on your side of the AGW argument stick up for you and your bizarre concepts of basic physics? Ian? No. FCT? No. Anyone? No.

No I haven't because there are none. You seem incapable of ever telling the truth

 

[Crick]

Attempting to make a point with you is a complete waste of time. You ignore or deny facts before your face. The views you hold are not based on evidence or teaching as you seem to give those processes no value. The consistency with which you take up bizarre and uniquely erroneous views on basic science make it VERY difficult to believe you are not simply trolling.

 

[Crick]

It almost appears as if you were force fed basic physics while still a very young child too young and inexperienced to understand what you were being told. You had no context within which to place the information being given you. Your misbegotten interpretations were never corrected and what we see before us is the result.

Your views on science topics are bizarre, laughable, ridiculous, pathetic, ignorant and as wrong as wrong can be.

 

[Dot Com]

Attempting to make a point with you is a complete waste of time. You ignore or deny facts before your face. The views you hold are not based on evidence or teaching as you seem to give those processes no value. The consistency with which you take up bizarre and uniquely erroneous views on basic science make it VERY difficult to believe you are not simply trolling.

its the deniers M.O., never accept anything that is counter to their pollution/profit narrative. Sad really

 

[SSDD]

Attempting to make a point with you is a complete waste of time. You ignore or deny facts before your face. The views you hold are not based on evidence or teaching as you seem to give those processes no value. The consistency with which you take up bizarre and uniquely erroneous views on basic science make it VERY difficult to believe you are not simply trolling.

Attempting to lie to me is a complete waste of time and lying seems to be all you are capable of. The evidence is that there has never been a measured observation of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object. When you get one...you will surely get a nobel as the second law will have to be rewritten to reflect what you found.

And since you lie, and support a hoax with every post...it is clear that you are the troll.

 

[Crick]

There you go.

You know, among many other things, the internet is full of websites and videos that are intended to explain the basics of thermodynamics to you. Why don't you see if you can find one created by someone with some actual authority in the field, that gives an explanation of radiant heat transfer or the Second Law that matches YOUR understanding. Keep track of how many different sites you look at trying to find someone who agrees with you.

Then be honest and let us know how many sites you had to check out before you gave up.

 

[Crick]

Let's start with Wikipedia:

Radiation
Thermal radiation occurs through a vacuum or any transparent medium (solid or fluid). It is the transfer of energy by means of photons inelectromagnetic waves governed by the same laws.[14] Earth's radiation balance depends on the incoming and the outgoing thermal radiation, Earth's energy budget. Anthropogenic perturbations in the climate system, are responsible for a positive radiative forcing which reduces the net longwave radiation loss out to Space.

Thermal radiation is energy emitted by matter as electromagnetic waves, due to the pool of thermal energy in all matter with a temperature above absolute zero. Thermal radiation propagates without the presence of matter through the vacuum of space.[15]

Thermal radiation is a direct result of the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. Since these atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles (protons and electrons), their movement results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which carries energy away from the surface.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which describes the rate of transfer of radiant energy, is as follows for an object in a vacuum :

For radiative transfer between two objects, the equation is as follows:

where Q is the rate of heat transfer, ε is the emissivity (unity for a black body), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the absolute temperature (in Kelvin or Rankine). Radiation is typically only important for very hot objects, or for objects with a large temperature difference.

Radiation from the sun, or solar radiation, can be harvested for heat and power.[16] Unlike conductive and convective forms of heat transfer, thermal radiation can be concentrated in a small spot by using reflecting mirrors, which is exploited in concentrating solar power generation.[17] For example, the sunlight reflected from mirrors heats the PS10 solar power tower and during the day it can heat water to 285 °C (545 °F).
*************************************************************************************************************
I know Todd had these equations up here before. I'm just curious how you explain the TWO TEMPERATURES in the equation for heat transfer between two objects. I would have thought that in your world, the difference between the two temperatures would simply act as some sort of gate. Like: If Ta>Tb then [Q=sigma deltaTa] else [Q=0]. Right? But that's NOT what they've got there. What they have there shows that the heat transfer actually taking place is the net, the algebraic sum, of the heat being transferred from hot to cold and from cold to hot.

I believe Todd pointed this one out to you as well. Let's say I have three cannonballs. One is 100C, the next is 50C. The last one is 0C. I have an insulated chamber in which I can place two of these at a time and monitor what their temperatures do. I first put the 100C in with the 50C. The first ball cools while the second ball warms up. I take them out and bring the 100C ball back up to temperature and then put it in with the 0C ball. Again, the hot ball cools and the cool ball warms.

What's the difference? Ta^4-Tb^4 is larger in the second case than in the first. The exchange, the heat transfer is much faster in the second case than in the first. The RATE at which heat is transferred is dependent on the magnitude of the temperature DIFFERENCE. The total transfer is the NET result of transfer taking place in BOTH DIRECTIONS. What you have been suggesting is that the hot ball will radiate as single-body Stefen-Boltzman says 100C will radiate and the second ball will not radiate at all. There would be no difference in the heat transfer rate in the two cases.


Do you disagree?

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

We are a long way from #OurOcean here.
And I can't even HEAR the waves from here.
Time to put this one to bed.. No one wants to wade
thru pages just to get here.

FlaCalTenn