AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

The two stars alone are in equilibrium negating any added heat from one another.

That's idiot gibberish. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. "Equilibrium" does not somehow magically lead to "negating any added heat from one another". That's dishonest handwaving, attributing an awesome magical power to "equilibrium", but never explaining just how "equilibrium" accomplishes such magic.

Just how does "equilibrium" pull off the trick of magically making energy vanish?

 

[mamooth]

Notice that all they have to "offer" are dumb comments when it`s pointed out that heat sink fins don`t "back-radiate" and get hotter.

PolarBear, of course, is the only one loony enough to think fins will backradiate each other to the melting point.

This illustrates one of the huge failings of common sense that all of the cultists here display, the way they don't understand spatial relationships in the real world. They can't think in 3 dimensions. Heck, they can't even think in 2 dimensions.

Poor PolarBear here is stuck in 1 dimension. He declares the heat radiating from a fin is constrained such that 100% must hit another fin, and can see no other possibility. Because of that astoundingly stupid lack of spatial awareness on his part, he thus concludes the heat has nowhere to go and must build up forever.

Non-retards, however, understand that the world is 3-dimensional. The fins radiate in all directions in 3 dimensions, not just at other fins. Maybe 90% of the radiation heads somewhere besides another fin, thus cooling the heatsink. Since fins provide more surface area for radiation and back-radiate very little at other fins, they provide more cooling, even in a vacuum.

But hey, that's just what electronics designers for the past 50 years have known. PolarBear needs to tell them they're wrong too, along with all the world's physicists.

 

[polarbear]

That didn`t take long for the first retard to dump garbage in here again. Now the retard "Nuclear watch officer" is talking about "vanishing photons" because it is too retarded to figure out what happens with photons when they are slowed down in glass, partially blocked photon flux by tinted glass or altogether blocked with 2 polarizing filter at a 90 degree orientation.
So why did you not comment on IanC`s "back radiating coal fire ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ospheric-physics-post7120270.html#post7120270

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Like I said the world has no use for retards like you, who spend their entire day trolling in a forum.
Hey "numan" ...you like using that German term "Die Dummheit der Götter" which you use totally out of context because you don`t know **** about German literature.
Here is what one of these "dumb Gods" just came up with...:
Der Opoc-Motor von Eco Motors wird in China produziert - SPIEGEL ONLINE

http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-482128-breitwandaufmacher-uioi.jpg

The 70 year old ex VW engineer Peter Hofbauer came to Michigan and started a business called "Eco Motors" with his 2 stroke Opoc (Opposed Piston, Opposed Cylinder,) invention.
As soon as he patented it Obama`s friend Bill Gates got into the act and moved the entire production facility to minimum wage China.

Microsoft-Gründer Bill Gates. Insgesamt hat Eco Motors 66 Millionen Euro Investitionskapital eingesammelt. Der chinesische Automobilzulieferer Zhongding Power wird für 200 Millionen Dollar nahe Shanghai ein Werk bauen, in dem ab 2014 jährlich bis zu 150.000 Opoc-Antriebe produziert werden können.

Zhongding Power is building a $ 200 million production plant near Shanghai that will produce 150 000 Opoc engines per year starting 2014
What you call "Dummheit der Götter" is called Intelligent Design, something that neither you and your loudmouth sock puppets can wrap their tiny "hard wired"
little brains around
And yes, it does have CO2 coming out of the exhaust pipes, it`s a 2 stroke Diesel engine!
Since you know that much about thermodynamics why don`t you go to China with "numan" and tell Herr Hofbauer how to do it right.
I`m sure he would not leave without his Abbott and Costello team of "physics experts"...so start packing and **** off.

 

[mamooth]

Th didn`t take long for the first retard to dump garbage

While that was a lovely senile retard rant, it noticeably neglected to address the issue.

And that issue was your laughable lack of common sense, the way you assumed heat fins could only radiate directly at each other, instead of in all directions over 3 dimensions. That same total lack of common sense and logic is apparent in everything you write, and is a common characteristic of the cultists.

So why did you not comment on IanC`s "back radiating coal ?

Because he trounced you so thoroughly with that simple comment, there was no need to add to it. You were so flummoxed by it, you had to run from the simple case and invent whole new complicated scenarios that had little to do with two hot coals sitting next to each other.

But hey, here's your crazy story. Let's look at it closer.

As you can see the cooler steel cools down the coal even where it is not in direct contact.
So where is that "back-radiation" from a colder object to a hotter one that you insist on ?

As the steel is cool compared to the coals, it would not be radiating at levels anywhere close to the level the coals are radiating at. Thus, the coals would be radiating lots of heat away on the steel side, and only getting a tiny bit of backradiation back, so they would cool down on that side. On the coal side, they get lots of backradiation back from other coals, so they stay hot.

So, congratulations on a fine photo that demonstrated backradiation well.

 

[SSDD]

So, the cultists here are still adamant about rejecting the past century of physics in favor of their new groundbreaking magic vanishing photon theories. No problem. I can even help them out with some new ideas.

I see you talking. What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature. Surely you must know that you can't produce any because none exist. Now a thinking kitty would be asking itself...why isn't there any. I mean, we can measure all sorts of radiation at ambient temperature...we can certainly measure the radiation up from the earth at ambient temperture...why can't we measure it coming back down if it is coming back down?

Perhaps they can somehow use this "Electric Universe" theory of alternate physics to justify their own vision of a world of intelligent molecules.

It is your team who is fabricating a universe where energy exchange is a two way street. We are just stating the laws of thermodynamics as they are written. It is you guys who are saying something else.

Your pretended condesention is a defense mechanism compensating for your inability to prove your point with anything existing in the real world.

 

[SSDD]

Because he trounced you so thoroughly with that simple comment, there was no need to add to it. You were so flummoxed by it, you had to run from the simple case and invent whole new complicated scenarios that had little to do with two hot coals sitting next to each other.

He (Ian) trounced himself but missed it. In one sentence he claimed that the coals were adding heat to each other..in the next sentence he got it right when he stated that they were simply losing heat at a slower rate. His first statement was fiction..a fabrication...not physical...not possible outside of a computer model...his second statement is physical and predicted by the laws of thermodynamics. Cooling slower is not warming...

In his subsequent posts, he reverted to the fiction after actually stating the fact. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[mamooth]

What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature.

Given you've ignored all such evidence presented to you, what's the point of presenting it yet another time? You'd just keep pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[IanC]

The earth system has never and will never be in equilibrium...another patently false claim on your part. You make these statements as if they were fact when they aren't even close. Maybe you believe them, or maybe you just never think very deeply into what you are going to say, but saying it doesn't make it true and making claims like the earth system has ever been in equilibrium really puts you solidly into the realm of the true cranks.

Our CO2 hasn't changed the temperature of the planet beyond that which it's addition can be calculated via the ideal gas laws...in other words, virtually none and nonewhatsoever in its fictitious role as a so called greenhouse gas.

of course the earth is in a state very close to equilibrium. to an amazing degree actually considering how many different systems are involved.

I noticed you havent started the thread on skydragon slayer theory yet to 'prove' that CO2 has no effect.

 

[SSDD]

What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature.

Given you've ignored all such evidence presented to you, what's the point of presenting it yet another time? You'd just keep pretending it doesn't exist.

Neither you, nor any of your pals have produced the first piece of observed measured evidence of backradaiton. At least Ian admits that there is none....you, siagon, and neuman don't know enogh to even know what constitutes backradiation...

your claim that a cooled FLIR unit was recording backradiation made it clear enough that you don't have a clue.

 

[SSDD]

of course the earth is in a state very close to equilibrium. to an amazing degree actually considering how many different systems are involved.

Nope. Not in equilibrium...never been...never will be. I see that you have altered your statement from "in equlibrium" to "near equilibrium" And the idea that a trace gas in the atmosphere might change the energy balance even more is just silly.

I noticed you havent started the thread on skydragon slayer theory yet to 'prove' that CO2 has no effect.

I never planned to. You know where the paper is...if not here is a link.

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

By the way...what has yet to be proven is that CO2 has any effect at all. The weight of proof lies on the shoulders of warmers and luke warmers..and you know perfectly well that there is no, and never will be any proof.

 

[IanC]

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

Why do you never seem to be able to grasp the point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly.

You write the fantasy...then destroy the fantasy with the truth which you don't seem to be able to see and then in the next post revert to the fantasy.

The first bolded statement is the fantasy....the second bolded statement is the truth. LOSING LESS HEAT IS NOT ADDING TO EACH OTHER"S HEAT. It is such a simple, and unavoidable bit of information...how is it that you can't see it. Loosing less heat is in no way, and by any definition..warming or adding heat. It is cooling no matter how you slice it dice it or julienne it. It is what the second law predicts. There is no warming....

THERE IS ONLY COOLING ... MOVING TOWARDS MORE ENTROPY .... FOR EVER AND EVER ..... AMEN.

in this case I think the whole statement should be quoted-

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

in a way I think we may be making progress. we have a heat source that glows brighter on the inside face because IR from the other heat source is replacing radiated IR, which allows the combined temperature to rise. heat loss is much smaller when radiating into a warm area than into a cold one. the available energy from combustion is able to raise the temperature of the face to a higher degree, although it is still lower than the temperature at the point of combustion.

you can have the same effect without a second heat source. eg the sun(4000K) heats the surface to 300K which is higher than the 250K it would be if no atmosphere was present. all numbers are approx. of course the surface is not a 'special' place except for the humans who live there. I would be more interested in finding out more about the spot where upwards radiation matches downward radiation but that may be distorted by the water cycle systems.

 

[SSDD]

There is no backradiation....period.

 

[IanC]

What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature.

Given you've ignored all such evidence presented to you, what's the point of presenting it yet another time? You'd just keep pretending it doesn't exist.

Neither you, nor any of your pals have produced the first piece of observed measured evidence of backradaiton. At least Ian admits that there is none....you, siagon, and neuman don't know enogh to even know what constitutes backradiation...

your claim that a cooled FLIR unit was recording backradiation made it clear enough that you don't have a clue.

there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in all directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.

 

[numan]

Hey "numan" ...you like using that German term "Die Dummheit der Götter" which you use totally out of context because you don`t know **** about German literature.
Here is what one of these "dumb Gods" just came up with...:

That does it!! I can look with amusement at the childishness of this base, vulgar, frozen-brained technician when he insults me with his lies and distortions, but when he insults one of the greatest poets of the German language by misquoting him and completely twisting his words, it is no longer merely a pleasure to reprove this ignoramus, it becomes a duty!!

The line of the immortal Friedrich von Schiller -- the man whose Ode to Joy provided the text which Beethoven used in the last movement of his Ninth Symphony and which has become the inspiring anthem of the European Community -- the line from Schiller's great poem on The Maid of Orléans, the line which I reverently used as the title of one of my postings, the line which this low cur has insulted, was :

"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"

"With stupidity the Gods themselves struggle in vain"

And how true that apothegm is could not be better exemplified by the stupidity of this frozen-brained polar bear both here and throughout this thread which has been ruined by the ravings of global heating Denialists.

This illiterate oaf has twisted the words to mean "the stupidity of the Gods"!! What a bumptious, arrogant twit!

But who can be surprised? I remember my (mercifully limited!!) experience of engineers -- the soiled underwear of the Academic World -- in university. These dregs of the World of Thought were mainly noted for tossing rolls of toilet paper through tree branches, and similar japes and tricks solely intended to make a mess which the overworked janitorial staff then had to clean up.

The frozen-brained arctoid who disgraces these pages is clearly cut from the same cloth.
.

 

[IanC]

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Since you brought that up let me point out something that everybody who heated steel or welds can observe every time they do:

As you can see the cooler steel cools down the coal even where it is not in direct contact.
So where is that "back-radiation" from a colder object to a hotter one that you insist on ?
The exact opposite is happening not just here...it`s also happening if you use an arc welder for welding or heating with graphite rods.
The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.
Go find a blacksmith and see for yourself !

thank you for quoting the whole statement.

I am surprised that you are confounding conduction with radiation. conduction is more efficient by a couple of orders of magnitude compared to radiation.

while thermal uplift does cause an increased draft and more available oxygen, it is more of a byproduct of the increased heat than the cause. a positive feedback to be sure.

like I said there are confounding issues but that does not negate the radiation factor.


edit- metals are extremely good at conduction. asbestos would be more conducive to building up the heat rather than dissapating it.

 

[IanC]

The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.

we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

you used your telescope and complained that magnifying cool radiation from the outside (or at least the cool windowpane) did not heat the focal point. in fact it cooled it as I had predicted. you refused to point it at an object warmer than ambient temperature which would have warmed the focal point (and cooled the object).

 

[SSDD]

there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in all directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.

And we can measure it, at ambient temperature in every direction but back. Simple as that. It doesn't happen......ever. Moving back would be moving in the direction of less entropy...can't happen. Get yourself a new hypothesis because you can't even break even...much less win.

 

[SSDD]

we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

I don't recall having any discussion about that. I brought it up to siagon who promptly ignored the observable evidence that backradiation isn't happening. I don't think anyone else even mentioned it till polar bear's reference.

 

[IanC]

there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in all directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.

And we can measure it, at ambient temperature in every direction but back. Simple as that. It doesn't happen......ever. Moving back would be moving in the direction of less entropy...can't happen. Get yourself a new hypothesis because you can't even break even...much less win.

Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.

 

[polarbear]

The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.

we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

you used your telescope and complained that magnifying cool radiation from the outside (or at least the cool windowpane) did not heat the focal point. in fact it cooled it as I had predicted. you refused to point it at an object warmer than ambient temperature which would have warmed the focal point (and cooled the object).

Come on IanC, don`t twist that story around. If I find the time I`ll dig up your replies when I posted this video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=21"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]
1.) I did not complain
2.)you were the one that complained [2]
3.) you did not predict anything
4.) I did not refuse to point the telescope at something warm.[3]
[2] You claimed that the thermistor cooled down because my "solar fridge" was only inches away from a cold window...and said that`s why it got cold.
To which I replied that I got R30 thermal windows and you could see that they are because they don`t fog up at sub zero outside temperatures. So if anything that telescope was pointed smack dab point blank at an object which was > 30 C warmer than the outside.[3]
+ I allowed that thermistor to stabilize at room temperature, which was +25 C. Then I slid it through the eye piece opening into the focal point.
The telescope is a [4] black Aluminum tube 34 inches long and 6" diameter.
The tube + the air inside the tube was at +25 C, just like my window.

As soon as the thermistor was in the focal point it cooled off rapidly....despite the fact that it was fully enclosed in a warm metal tube which was full of warm air inside my warm kitchen.
That 34 by 6 inch tube had every opportunity to "back radiate" to the thermistor to keep it at the same temperature or as Roy Spencer would have it warm up even more than when it was out in the open and the nearest warm objects were the 4 walls it was in.
[4] That black Aluminum tube is not exactly an ideal black body, but a much better one than what "climate scientists" assigned as average albedo to planet earth...it`s at least as good as a blacktop road.
And by the way IanC, I`m pretty sure that there were ~ 380 ppm CO2 in my house at that time too.
So now go look on your favorite diagram up how much IR is bouncing around inside a +25 C room and read again what Roy Spencer says should happen to a warm piece of metal being "bombarded by back-radiation photons" coming from a warm window.
You keep pointing out (correctly) that photons inside a warm room go in all possible directions. They had every opportunity to be absorbed by that pitch black metal tube....which certainly does not forbid photons to radiate off the inside surface of the telescope tube...and warm the air + the thermistor inside.
Don`t forget there was an equally warm 6 inch mirror in the telescope zapping that thermistor with a +25 C photon spectrum...while it cooled off



And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again...the jury is in and pronounced you a fraud.
However, I`ll give you 1 more chance. That phony "cell phone picture" which you say had it`s digital fingerprint altered by photobucket...which is a lie, because yours is the only one they did that to...
Snap that picture again and this time put 4 pennies on that document. Alternate them heads and tails...then upload that picture and link to it.