CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,628
- 71,931
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #61
Then ∆T + .8 ...
Yes?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then ∆T + .8 ...
LOLThe site clearly says "This coating reflects otherwise wasted infrared radiation back onto the bulb filament. By recycling the radiant heat, less energy is required to raise the filament temperature to the optimum level. The result is a more efficient light bulb".Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.
A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen..
Do you think the engineers who designed the IR halogen bulb are fooled or are fooling us? Do you think the bulb is a scam and should be taken off the market? I don't think so. Science, does not say that the frequency being reflected back must be higher than emitted. So what you say is not true. Where did you get that?
.
So why aren't we tracking atmospheric H2O?
How much of this imaginary "temperature increase" is created by 120ppm of CO2? You sure seem smart, can you provide that number along with the calculations
We report water vapor by dew point temperature, and along with air temperature we can then calculate relative humidity and mass ... we also report liquid water content by cloud cover ... these values are given at most of the bigger airports every hour ... Chicago is currently reporting 91% RH, fog at the surface, and a layer of broken clouds at 2,500' ...
From the formula ∆T = k 5.35 ln (CF/CI) ... where ∆T is the temperature rise, k is the sensitivity factor, CI is the initial CO2 concentration and CF is the final CO2 concentration
Substituting our known values:
∆T = k 5.35 ln (405/280) --> ∆T = 1.99 k ºC
K is unknown at this time ... so this is a point of debate ... typical Hysteria tracks give this as k = 0.8, which in turn means current carbon dioxide levels have already increased surface temperatures 1.6ºC ... unfortunately we've only measured 0.6ºC increase, or k = 0.3 ... meaning temperature isn't as sensitive to carbon dioxide as it needs to be to cause problems ...
Why this value of k hasn't been determined experimentally is beyond my ability to understand ... perhaps it has and the National Enquirer or Nature and their like haven't reported it ... we do know it's a positive value qualitatively, the video wuwei posted above clearly demonstrates that fact ...
Also yet to be determined is how carbon sensitivity and emissivity are connected ... that's definitely a broken link in our cause-and-effect chain ... and without this link, we need to treat climate models with suspicion ... there's some assumptions that are made that are just not verified in any way yet ...
Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?
.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???
For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..
For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..
It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,
Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation..
A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.
Those pesky Tachyons did it.For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..
It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,
Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation..
A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.
What about the second law of Thermodynamics? Why did life form with the third law of Thermodynamics?
Do you multiply 5.35 × LN (Cf - C1)?Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?
.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???
Same place 3 x 10^8 comes from ... it just is ...
Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?
.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???
Same place 3 x 10^8 comes from ... it just is ...
Didn't really even look...at its core, such an experiment would turn out to be some sort of side show hucksterism sufficient to fool someone who wants to be fooled since it is impossible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation...
If you want to provide a link to the experiment I will be happy to try and figure out why you are being fooled into thinking that the body in question is being warmed by its own radiation.
Go to the other thread ... the one specifically started so these types of discussions don't interfere with the topic at hand ... please explain there why there's 15µm radiation on moonless nights ... the experiment is lay out IR film face up, expose it, then see if the film is fogged ...
For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..
It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,
Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation..
A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.
What about the second law of Thermodynamics? Why did life form with the third law of Thermodynamics?
Didn't really even look...at its core, such an experiment would turn out to be some sort of side show hucksterism sufficient to fool someone who wants to be fooled since it is impossible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation...
If you want to provide a link to the experiment I will be happy to try and figure out why you are being fooled into thinking that the body in question is being warmed by its own radiation.
Go to the other thread ... the one specifically started so these types of discussions don't interfere with the topic at hand ... please explain there why there's 15µm radiation on moonless nights ... the experiment is lay out IR film face up, expose it, then see if the film is fogged ...
You think there is no light on a moonless night? There you go...question answered...just because it is moonless doesn't mean that there is no light.
There is a disturbingly large amount of "it just is" found in climate science...
Those pesky Tachyons did it.
You think there is no light on a moonless night? There you go...question answered...just because it is moonless doesn't mean that there is no light.
Yes ... ln (405/280) = ln 1.45 = 0.372 ... what we saying here is that temperature change is proportional to the logarithm of concentration change ... 5.35 is the constant of proportionality ... so now we have ∆T = 5.35 x 0.372 x k = 1.99 x k ... whatever k is, it's still unknown ...
So, he conducted an experiment with, what, one variable?LOL The Dunning Kruger boys are at it again. I wonder if you fellows could add up to three digits if you added up your respective IQ's? The first experiment that determined what the GHGs were in the atmosphere was done by Tyndall in 1859.
Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on
BUT HE CITED THE FOUNDER OF HIS CHURCH YOU HAVE TO BELEEVE^ no math, no science, not unexpected.LOL The Dunning Kruger boys are at it again. I wonder if you fellows could add up to three digits if you added up your respective IQ's? The first experiment that determined what the GHGs were in the atmosphere was done by Tyndall in 1859.
Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on
It makes up nicely with the AGW Theory and I wonder if there is lab work showing the same results?