Trenberth's Energy Budget

[gslack]

Ian, the skin is the radiator, the clothing or blanket if it is colder than the skin at the time it is placed in contact with it will indeed make the skin overall cooler for a time. Once the the inside of the blanket reaches equilibrium with the skin its in contact with, then the situation will change of course. But at the point a cooler body (blanket) first makes contact with a warmer body (skin) the skin will get cooler until equilibrium is reached.

I think Wirebender is referring to that, and you are most likely referring to after equilibrium is reached. When broken down fully you will find they are two different situations both mathematically and naturally...

A good example, is a cold pillow.. I like to turn my pillow over at night so I have a cooler side on my face until I fall asleep. I can feel it making my skin cooler at first, then once equilibrium is established, it of course causes my skin to get warmer on the side touching that same pillow. I turn that same pillow over and its cold on that side, and again it cools my skin for a time...

certainly I can agree with that point. but the cool side of the pillow is mostly a combination of conductance and heat sink. I thought we were discussing radiation at equilibrium. you may even be correct at the boundary of skin and clothes because of the better thermal capacity of conduction over radiation. but a clothed body loses less heat than an uncovered one so the body will not need to burn as much food to keep at its desired temperature of 37C internally.

Ian you are trying to nitpick this until you can walk away thinking you are right.. I will not play a semantics tit-for-tat game with you any longer.. The point remains the fact the colder blanket will cool the warmer skin for a time, regardless of the means the end result is the same... Jesus dude what the hell is wrong with you?

I said I believe the two of you were referring to separate points in the blanket/skin heat interaction. He was referring to point of contact which from the wording of your post I can hardly blame him, thats what I took it to imply. And you are referring to equilibrium state..

on a side note... I an I think you are confused regarding equilibrium and what it means in cases like spencers experiment and our discussions of it.. the best definition I have seen is this one : Equilibrium (&#8652 is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced.

This does not mean both bars will reach the same temperature. What it means is they will be in balance as far as energy in, out, and with limitations inherent with environment, conditions, materials, et al..

Equilibrium in the experiment and our discussion of it have been in reference to the energy not the heat produced from that energy or the temperatures of the bars..

If you read spencers experiment more carefully you will see HE says they reach equilibrium when the first bar is at 150 F and the second bar is at 100 F...

Ian I seriously don't think you want to find truth here, I think you just want to walk away feeling you are right no matter what... Your arguments are all too often misusing terms and conditions, you seem to not have many of the core knowledge any form of physical science study would give you.. You didn't know the two-slit experiment, you didn't know that a photon was EM radiation, and know you show you do not what equilibrium ins systems means...

I am growing tired of this game Ian, I really am..

 

[IanC]

here is a relevent part of wirebender's 'math' -

If another identical “non-heated” and colder plate is inserted into the Vacuum Chamber next to the heated Plate then:

The 2nd Plate also has an emissivity = 1 and a surface Area for the 2nd plate = 1 m^2

We can easily determine the equilibrium temperature of both plates by using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and The Law of Conservation of Energy.

The TOTAL amount of energy available is 744.95 Watts and both plates will have the same temperature at equilibrium, so they can be considered to be a single radiating body with double the radiating surface area.

here is a diagram of the end stage equilibrium from Spencer's article-

the second unheated plate obviously cannot be as warm as the heated one. personally I think the inside faces of the two plates will be slightly warmer than the outside faces but this is a simple diagram.

it is also obvious from the diagram that the energy flow between the two inside faces will involve less net power transfer than the faces that lose heat to the outside because the temperature difference is less. this makes a mockery of wirebender's equal radiation from all surfaces EVEN if he could come up with an explanation for both bars being the same temperature.

the total power lost to the outside is the same in both parts of the experiment. only the amounts radiating from the different faces change. the amount of radiation from the heated inside face is less effective because of the back radiation from the unheated block. the difference backs up, and raises the temperature in the heated block which in turn raises the amount of radiation released by all of the faces of the heated block until equilibrium is again reached.

 

[gslack]

Ian you left out the pertinent part at the end...

"And the equilibrium temperature for both plates will be 284.69 K or 53 deg F.
————-
NOTE:

This is simple effect is demonstrated every day and is happening in your Computer right now.

It’s called a “Heat Sink” and is used to cool the microprocessor in your computer by increasing the radiating surface area of the microprocessor.

Here was the mathematical proof that in order for the heated bar to reach a temperature of 160, additional energy would have to be created.

PROOF:
160 deg F = 344.11 K and that means it would require:
P = (5.67X10^-8) X 1m^2 X (344.11 K)^4 = 795 Watts!

795 Watts exceeds the TOTAL Energy available which is 744.95 Watts.

An obvious violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy.

You were shown that in order to get the heated plate to 160 degrees, an additional 50.05 watts above and beyond what is available is required. Where do you believe that additional energy came from? The plate that had no power source? Well of course you believe that is where it came from because you also beleive that the atmosphere, which is not an energy source, provides energy to the surface of the earth."

now again this is due to the parameters described in spencers experiment... Are the bars touching or not? if not what is the distance between them? What is the temperature in the chamber? All of these things are factors that spencer ( i think deliberately ) either makes vague, or fails to clarify.. If the bars are touching the math is true, if not then there are other variables that cannot be quantified due to missing information.

One problem is, is the first bar the heating element or a bar sitting on the heating element? he eludes to one then the other several times, making assumptions all too frequent. If indeed the bar is a separate entity from the heating element, than we must ask if it is sitting on that element or sitting above, below, or to the left or right of it. And then we must ask how far in any direction..

IF the heating element and bar are separate entities than the equation is correct, if not than its a different equation.

personally from reading it I took the first bar to be the heating element since the drawing shows wires going to it. And if that is the case then you cannot consider the first bar anything but the heat source. Which makes any attempt to show a cold object making a warm object warmer, dubious in this experiment.

This experiment is an experiment used to show the zeroth law at work. but he took out one of the bars.

A common way to describe zeroth law is to use the three identical bars concept. bar A, bar B, and Bar C. If A and C are in equilibrium with each other than object B must also be in equilibrium with both A and C. this of course will vary depending on materials, conditions, et al.. Remember it assumes "all things being equal".. Spencer removed one of the bars and tried to use incidental heat gain from kinetic energy transfer as a way to explain the problem with cold to hot transfer in greenhouse theory..

I don't know any other way to put it Ian, frankly I am learning a great deal of this as I go and the continued side arguing over variables and non-factors is giving me a migraine now.. Fact is as spencer relates the experiment its not applicable in real world atmospheric heat transfer no matter how he tries to BS it ..

This may help...
Methods of Heat Transfer

1. 1. Consider Object A which has a temperature of 65°C and Object B which has a temperature of 15°C. The two objects are placed next to each other and the little bangers begin colliding. Will any of the collisions result in the transfer of energy from Object B to Object A? Explain.


Answer: Most certainly yes.

The average kinetic energy of the particles in Object A is greater than the average kinetic energy of the particles in Object B. But there is a range of speeds and thus of kinetic energy in both objects. As such, there will be some highly energetic particles in Object B and some very non-energetic particles in Object A. When this combination of particles encounter a collision, there will a transfer of energy across the boundary from Object B (the colder object) to Object A (the hotter object). This is just one collision. Since majority of collisions result from the more energetic particles of Object A with less energetic particles of collision B, there will be a net kinetic energy transfer from Object A to Object B.

2. Suppose that Object A and Object B (from the previous problem) have reached a thermal equilibrium. Do the particles of the two objects still collide with each other? If so, do any of the collisions result in the transfer of energy between the two objects? Explain.

Answer:

The collisions will still take place because the particles are still moving. Just because the temperatures are the same doesn't mean the collisions will stop. The fact that the temperature is identical means that the average kinetic energy of all the particles is the same for both objects. As such, there will be just as much energy transferred from Object B to Object A as there is energy transferred in the opposite direction. When the effect of these collisions is averaged, there is no net energy transfer. This explains why the temperature of the two objects remains the same. Thermal equilibrium persists.


So according to that physics online classroom you are both right and both wrong, just as spencer is neither right nor wrong.. The transfer is not as spencer describes it, and it does violate the second law the way he describes it. Again he took a variable in a controlled environment and tried to use it to save a severe flaw in a completely different theory.

Until spencer stops playing his little mind games like these he can kiss my ass.. He is a charlatan plain and simple.. he knew damn good and well taking a demonstration of the zeroth law and changing the elements involved would lead to mass misunderstandings and confusion on this, he knew this and did so intentionally to confound it even further...

Thats why I know AGW theory is BS...If it were so undeniably true why do they have to pull shit like this all the time?

In my 20+ years as a data analyst both for the military and for others i have found one undeniable and unquestionable fact.. If there is a lot of deliberate BS in a simple thing, some one is lying! Either at the source or in transit someone has planted BS in the beans... The truth is never so complicated Ian, trust me on this... You don't have to sell the truth, it sells itself.

if spencer were being truthful he wouldn't soil it with this nonsense... Again his experiment is designed to confound and confuse not to shed light or explain... He achieved his goal apparently...

 

[IanC]

gslack- the difference is that one block was heated and they werent touching. try again.

 

[IanC]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

 

[gslack]

gslack- the difference is that one block was heated and they werent touching. try again.

Ian thats it.... That was a deliberate and unjustified dismissal of all that I said and showed you.. If there was any doubt you are just another fake googleing terms to give a false impression of knowledge your response above to my post should kill it...

I have been spending more time on this than I should have and for that I get that from you after the shit you have pulled with me alone?

FU Ian... I am done from here on out you get my disdain, you do not dismiss work I have done without even reading the damn thing again and get to play nice with me again.. thats too many times I gave you a chance....

Now you imbecilic internet fraud, if you had an ounce of integrity in you, you would know i made a point in that post you responded to, to give both scenarios a fair explanation.. You can't even be honest at all can you fraud....

 

[gslack]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

he's a douchebag and a charlatan. he says one thing and then another. he has books to sell even the article you linked is a book advertisement.. So no thanks, he's a sell out..

you are dishonest, as well as reactionary.. And your inane BS posturing has gotten on my last nerve.. If you had half the experience and knowledge you claim to have in this, you would have known about the two-slit experiment, what an EM field is, what a photon is, and that spencers experiment was a deliberate whitewash using only part of an original and accurate experiment to show the zeroth law in action..

I call them as I see them Ian, and you are full of shit... You know less about physics than my 15 year old son... get a new persona this ones blown his cover fake..

 

[IanC]

you were just like wirebender. mixing apples with oranges. why are you pissed with me for pointing out that the scenario described in your link was different from what we were talking about?

 

[IanC]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

he's a douchebag and a charlatan. he says one thing and then another. he has books to sell even the article you linked is a book advertisement.. So no thanks, he's a sell out..

you are dishonest, as well as reactionary.. And your inane BS posturing has gotten on my last nerve.. If you had half the experience and knowledge you claim to have in this, you would have known about the two-slit experiment, what an EM field is, what a photon is, and that spencers experiment was a deliberate whitewash using only part of an original and accurate experiment to show the zeroth law in action..

I call them as I see them Ian, and you are full of shit... You know less about physics than my 15 year old son... get a new persona this ones blown his cover fake..

I obviously know about more photon paradoxes than you. both you and wirebender have some strange view of the thermodynamic laws that only hold true for the two of you. I am more than willing to discuss any of these thing because I actually find them interesting. So far the only thing you have shown me is that the message board has an odd way of dealing with unidentified quotes. which I am still sorry about BTW.

I am anything but dishonest. if I make a mistake I own up to it, and learn from it. I would be pleased if you if you found something that taught me something. so far I am still waiting though. on the other hand I have been trying to show you two guys a more realistic way of looking at physics and you refuse to even consider it. your loss.

 

[gslack]

you were just like wirebender. mixing apples with oranges. why are you pissed with me for pointing out that the scenario described in your link was different from what we were talking about?

No weasel I am pissed at you for being a deliberate asshole repeatedly.. the fact is the link was to show the fact that spencers experiment was ambiguous in its pretense and how that is so.. The rest of the post (80%) was dismissed by without even reading it..

Don't try and lie by reading it now, you dismissed it without reading again, you do this continually and then try and bullshit your way out of it.. If you had read it you would have commented on something more than just the reference link to show how spencer made the confusion work to his benefit. There was a great deal more to my post, I put time into it I know...

So go take a flying leap you fake...

 

[IanC]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

he's a douchebag and a charlatan. he says one thing and then another. he has books to sell even the article you linked is a book advertisement.. So no thanks, he's a sell out..

you are dishonest, as well as reactionary.. And your inane BS posturing has gotten on my last nerve.. If you had half the experience and knowledge you claim to have in this, you would have known about the two-slit experiment, what an EM field is, what a photon is, and that spencers experiment was a deliberate whitewash using only part of an original and accurate experiment to show the zeroth law in action..

I call them as I see them Ian, and you are full of shit... You know less about physics than my 15 year old son... get a new persona this ones blown his cover fake..

I'm curious. what's the original and accurate experiment?

 

[gslack]

Google it yourself fraud... Here's a hint: Theres reference to it one of the places I linked to previously... if you had read them you would know...

I don't do research for fakes..

 

[IanC]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

he's a douchebag and a charlatan. he says one thing and then another. he has books to sell even the article you linked is a book advertisement.. So no thanks, he's a sell out..

you are dishonest, as well as reactionary.. And your inane BS posturing has gotten on my last nerve.. If you had half the experience and knowledge you claim to have in this, you would have known about the two-slit experiment, what an EM field is, what a photon is, and that spencers experiment was a deliberate whitewash using only part of an original and accurate experiment to show the zeroth law in action..

I call them as I see them Ian, and you are full of shit... You know less about physics than my 15 year old son... get a new persona this ones blown his cover fake..

I'm curious. what was the original and accurate experiment?

 

[IanC]

sorry double post. internet glitch. I see you didnt want to answer the question. it seems you are guilty of many of the things that you accuse me of. projection perhaps? hahaha

 

[gslack]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

he's a douchebag and a charlatan. he says one thing and then another. he has books to sell even the article you linked is a book advertisement.. So no thanks, he's a sell out..

you are dishonest, as well as reactionary.. And your inane BS posturing has gotten on my last nerve.. If you had half the experience and knowledge you claim to have in this, you would have known about the two-slit experiment, what an EM field is, what a photon is, and that spencers experiment was a deliberate whitewash using only part of an original and accurate experiment to show the zeroth law in action..

I call them as I see them Ian, and you are full of shit... You know less about physics than my 15 year old son... get a new persona this ones blown his cover fake..

I'm curious. what was the original and accurate experiment?

I told you already, now go fetch asshole...

 

[IanC]

just like wirebender declaring to everybody that he provided the proof and did the math. in a past post. that he refuses to show anybody. just like the worst of climate scientists.

I dont really care, I was just curious. you two guys seem to think huffing and puffing and bluster is the same as describing your side of the story. I cant really judge the merits of your ideas if you refuse to produce them.

 

[gslack]

just like wirebender declaring to everybody that he provided the proof and did the math. in a past post. that he refuses to show anybody. just like the worst of climate scientists.

I dont really care, I was just curious. you two guys seem to think huffing and puffing and bluster is the same as describing your side of the story. I cant really judge the merits of your ideas if you refuse to produce them.

Stop posturing for the board asshole, want to talk to me than try honesty for once...

You are a fake, we both now it so knock off the bullshit.. You have no intention of examining the truth here all you want to do is save your internet identity by confounding the argument every time you get tested... FU phony, I do not dance for you no mater what you say here..

You are caught again showing you know nothing you claim you know, and actually understand even less... You are about as much a science expert as any other internet googlologist... Pathetic..

 

[IanC]

just like wirebender declaring to everybody that he provided the proof and did the math. in a past post. that he refuses to show anybody. just like the worst of climate scientists.

I dont really care, I was just curious. you two guys seem to think huffing and puffing and bluster is the same as describing your side of the story. I cant really judge the merits of your ideas if you refuse to produce them.

Stop posturing for the board asshole, want to talk to me than try honesty for once...

You are a fake, we both now it so knock off the bullshit.. You have no intention of examining the truth here all you want to do is save your internet identity by confounding the argument every time you get tested... FU phony, I do not dance for you no mater what you say here..

You are caught again showing you know nothing you claim you know, and actually understand even less... You are about as much a science expert as any other internet googlologist... Pathetic..

hahaha. as usual you type a lot of words....but no substance.

 

[gslack]

just like wirebender declaring to everybody that he provided the proof and did the math. in a past post. that he refuses to show anybody. just like the worst of climate scientists.

I dont really care, I was just curious. you two guys seem to think huffing and puffing and bluster is the same as describing your side of the story. I cant really judge the merits of your ideas if you refuse to produce them.

Stop posturing for the board asshole, want to talk to me than try honesty for once...

You are a fake, we both now it so knock off the bullshit.. You have no intention of examining the truth here all you want to do is save your internet identity by confounding the argument every time you get tested... FU phony, I do not dance for you no mater what you say here..

You are caught again showing you know nothing you claim you know, and actually understand even less... You are about as much a science expert as any other internet googlologist... Pathetic..

hahaha. as usual you type a lot of words....but no substance.

Stop posturing you fake... You couldn't argue my post so turned into the real you again same as always. Just a little punk playing smart-guy on the net. One of many nothing more..

Why didn't you respond to my post fairly then fraud? You couldn't and right now you are googling your ass of to find some terms you throw in here to save face... Same thing you did last time.

I just bet you make another thread where you google up someones study and try to comment on it again. Yeah you did that last time and it was a pathetic display of "see im still smart".. The truth is you aren't smart, you're just a fake with a little more patience with character creation than most of your ilk.. Same animal just a slightly better act..

So go make your ego stroking thread now and play smart for the forum. I know you for a fake and so does wiredbender, soon your BS will show with the rest of the forum.. People aren't fooled by a posturing buffoon for too long they will catch on...

 

[wirebender]

I think Wirebender is referring to that, and you are most likely referring to after equilibrium is reached. When broken down fully you will find they are two different situations both mathematically and naturally...

No offense gslack, but I am talking about the skin touching the blanket. Because the blanket is in open air and able to bleed off heat into the atmosphere, it will never reach equilibrium with the skin. A couple of Christmases ago, my kids pitched in together and got me a handy dandy infrared imager. This thing has a sensitivity of 0.15 C. I love toys like that.

The first time someone told me that a blanket will cool you down, my first instinct told me that it just wasn't so. Having a handy dandy infrared imager, I put the claim to the test. Sure enough, the skin in contact with the blanket is initially, and remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket. It doesn't matter how long you leave that blanket on, the skin in contact with the blanket remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket.

Those laws of physics are something. And interestingly enough, if you add blankets, the skin in contact with the blanket cools a little bit more. Not a lot, but it does get cooler. More blankets = more absorptivity and you can't generate more heat than you can generate so the skin in contact with the blanket remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket. Lift the blanket and in about 15 - 30 seconds, your skin goes back to its normal temperature. Of course, your skin temperature varies across your body but it goes back to normal.

When you look at the void between you and the bed (the tented area) you can see the radiation spread out and the temperature will eventually get relatively close, but never in equilibrium with your body. Even after hours in the bed, even with two bodies, the air space never gets to body temperature no matter how many blankets you have.