Trenberth's Energy Budget

[gslack]

Not sure if this may help with the concept overall but I will try once more..

Ian remember spencers experiment?

He mentions the plate being heated to 150 F?

Okay are we to assume he means the heat source is through a thermostat which keeps enough energy (electricity) flowing in it to keep it at that temp? or it is limited to enough energy required to make that plate that temperature? See the difference? With a thermostat to regulate it we are observing the temperature and not necessarily the energy directly just the result. The amount of energy it would take could change with environment, variables, insulators, heat sinks, et al. with the concern being the temperature. However if we were wanting to maintain the same energy input that would cause the plate to reach 150F with the set parameters and environment at the beginning any insulating body would require less energy to create 150F temperature in that plate.

So which are we concerned with the energy input to output vs back from the second plate or the heat?

One big problem I see with it is he mixes the two concepts giving the impression they are one and the same, When they are not.In his experiment Energy = cause, heat = effect... Changing parameters like adding another body in close enough proximity to allow reflected heat to factor into it (as he claims) would have to change the energy input from the source if we were concerned with maintaining 150F temperature, but he claims the source stays the same.. In which way does it stay the same? Input energy or output heat?

he does not specify that I read anyway, anything like that other then the 150F for the first plate. So to me even IF he could cause the temperature the first plate to rise (which i think not) it wouldn't be applicable to atmospheric activity on our planet anyway.

Even IF backradiation existed, it would amount to virtually no significance when you realize the loss of energy in the work involved at each stage of transfer. We have to take into account all other manner in which heat is transferred in the atmosphere and the surface, and the constant flow of the formless gasses due to their temperature, wind, pressure, concentration, and cloud cover...

The problem here is too many educated people (along with uneducated) that have focused on one aspect so intently they forget the bigger picture and fuss inconsequential factors that do nothing when taken into proper context with the whole.. They would love to see the forest but they have the damn tree in their way...

 

[IanC]

Not sure if this may help with the concept overall but I will try once more..

Ian remember spencers experiment?

He mentions the plate being heated to 150 F?

Okay are we to assume he means the heat source is through a thermostat which keeps enough energy (electricity) flowing in it to keep it at that temp? or it is limited to enough energy required to make that plate that temperature? See the difference? With a thermostat to regulate it we are observing the temperature and not necessarily the energy directly just the result. The amount of energy it would take could change with environment, variables, insulators, heat sinks, et al. with the concern being the temperature. However if we were wanting to maintain the same energy input that would cause the plate to reach 150F with the set parameters and environment at the beginning any insulating body would require less energy to create 150F temperature in that plate.

So which are we concerned with the energy input to output vs back from the second plate or the heat?

One big problem I see with it is he mixes the two concepts giving the impression they are one and the same, When they are not.In his experiment Energy = cause, heat = effect... Changing parameters like adding another body in close enough proximity to allow reflected heat to factor into it (as he claims) would have to change the energy input from the source if we were concerned with maintaining 150F temperature, but he claims the source stays the same.. In which way does it stay the same? Input energy or output heat?

he does not specify that I read anyway, anything like that other then the 150F for the first plate. So to me even IF he could cause the temperature the first plate to rise (which i think not) it wouldn't be applicable to atmospheric activity on our planet anyway.

Even IF backradiation existed, it would amount to virtually no significance when you realize the loss of energy in the work involved at each stage of transfer. We have to take into account all other manner in which heat is transferred in the atmosphere and the surface, and the constant flow of the formless gasses due to their temperature, wind, pressure, concentration, and cloud cover...

The problem here is too many educated people (along with uneducated) that have focused on one aspect so intently they forget the bigger picture and fuss inconsequential factors that do nothing when taken into proper context with the whole.. They would love to see the forest but they have the damn tree in their way...

a bit late to finally start thinking about the problem isnt it? oh well, better late than never.

as I previously pointed out....input equals output. the two options are as follows

1. the input of electricity remains at 750w and the heated bar increases temperature when the second bar is placed next to it.

2. the electricity is decreased to keep the heated bar at 150F, by 75w the last time I explained it, and the container is cooled because it is only receiving 675w instead of 750w.

(inputs, outputs and temps at equilibrium)

 

[IanC]

In this article we will consider what happens when this radiation reaches the ground. The reason we want to consider it is because so many people are confused about “back radiation” and have become convinced that either it doesn’t exist – covered in the previous two parts – or it can’t actually have any effect on the temperature of the earth’s surface.

The major reason that people give for thinking that DLR can’t affect the temperature is (a mistaken understanding of) the second law of thermodynamics, and they might say something like:

A colder atmosphere can’t heat a warmer surface

There are semantics which can confuse those less familiar with thermal radiation.

If we consider the specific terminology of heat we can all agree and say that heat flows from the warmer to the colder. In the case of radiation, this means that more is emitted by the hotter surface (and absorbed by the colder surface) than the reverse.

However, what many people have come to believe is that the colder surface can have no effect at all on the hotter surface. This is clearly wrong. And just to try and avoid upsetting the purists but without making the terminology too obscure I will say that the radiation from the colder surface can have an effect on the warmer surface and can change the temperature of the warmer surface.

Here is an example from a standard thermodynamics textbook:

his reason for writing the article. with a scanned in page of a physics text.

first utterance of imaginary---in reference to a distorted view of the 2nd law.



second use of imaginary---again in reference to the distorted definition of the 2nd law.

third and fourth use of 'imaginary'----again in reference to the mistaken interpretation of the 2nd law.

fifth and sixth utterances. still aimed at the twisted version of the 2nd law that wirebender espouses.

that seems to be all of them.

It`s a little bit taxing for me to explain the same thing over and over again, what the
difference between Energy and Power is...
Yet here we are again...
In addition to that it`s my turn to stand vigil at my daughters bed-side in the ICU
She has been scheduled for an operation to stop severe internal bleedings

But I`m going to humor You in the short time I have before I have to leave my house.
I wish You`ld read a real physics book instead of me having to read it for You.

Perhaps You don`t have any such book, ...and in my hurry, for now this is just a little substitute I could find for You in the
Internet

Quantum energy

In Planck's assumption, radiant energy is emitted in small bursts, known as "quanta". Each of the bursts called a "quantum" has energy E that depends on the frequency f of the electromagnetic radiation by the equation:


In classical physics, energy of electromagnetic (EM) radiation was thought to be absorbed or emitted continuously. It wasn't until late 1900 the German scientist Max Planck (1858-1947) made a radical assumption in explaining the black body radiation spectrum, the idea of discrete energy arose.

In Planck's assumption, radiant energy is emitted in small bursts, known as "quanta". Each of the bursts called a "quantum" has energy E that depends on the frequency f of the electromagnetic radiation by the equation:
E=h*f

where h is a fundamental constant of nature, the "Planck constant".
Planck constant

This equation is later found to be true for all EM radiant energy emitted or absorbed.

Planck's equation implies the higher the frequency of a radiation, the more energetic are its quanta.
It for example explains why you can never get brown from visible light ((f1=4*10^14Hz to f2=8.2*10^14Hz), but from ultraviolet light (from to ). The quanta of visible light don't carry enough energy to start the chemical reaction in your skin!


The quantum energy is not to compare with the power of the light! The Power of light (Luminosity) is the total energy per second, that means the number of quanta per second times the quantum energy. Therefore even if visible light carrys a lot more Energy per second than UV-light, you won't get any browner from it.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/images/visible_spectrum.jpg

>>>>>>
Well they are using skin as the body that absorbs these photons which according to Your climatology physics mentor
are all the same,...no matter how hot or cold the source was that emitted them...and there are much better examples
but right now I`m a little pressed for time and my thoughts are with my daughter...as I already told You in a private message..

But if You still don`t understand the difference between the frequency dependent energy quantum of light and
and the power, no matter if expressed as watts or luminosity ....You will never be able to understand it
reading the kind of crap like the the stuff You Google for on the Internet.


I wish I had the time to go yet again through every idiotic statement the author of the publication You cited.
"photons" are all the same no matter how hot or cold the emitting source was....and uses Planck`s curves
to sell You this lunacy...
all the while Planck was trying to explain why they are not..:

Quantum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of quantization of radiation was discovered in 1900 by Max Planck, who had been trying to understand the emission of radiation from heated objects, known as black body radiation.
By assuming that energy can only be absorbed or released in tiny, differential, discrete packets he called "bundles" or "energy elements,",[8]
Planck accounted for the fact that certain objects change colour when heated

>>>>>>
Since as You and the "climatologist" keep claiming that all photons are the same, then
it should also not be possible to observe a "color"...which is a frequncey change...which is
also a quantum energy change of the light emitted by any such body as the temperature goes up.

So if You wish to ignore the quantum nature of a photon , how do photons get absorbed by anything...if not by orbital jump
of an electron to a higher energy level...(speak potential)

The difference in the energy level of the orbital jump shows up as a higher frequency of the light that
has been emitted.
But once again I remind You, that any such photon that has initiated the jump must have
a sufficiently high ENERGY QUANTUM to do so.

But You still believe, "all photons" are the same and then You wind up in a bind
and I am supposed to explain to You why a photon that packs an energy quantum which is
too low can not move the electron orbital to the higher orbital ...

Show me where exactly in physics does it say that many more low energy quantums
can do the same thing as a (short wave) photon high energy quantum....

If that was so then the entire field of atomic absorption spectroscopy would seize to exist.
Any atom in the ground state could get it`s electrones "pumped up" to a higher orbital and
absorb light, no matter what the wavelength...

If photons were "all the same" as this author is claiming then it would not be necessary to
supply photons at very specific wavelength that pack the sufficiently high energy where light can be
absorbed.....

And no, You can`t add these "photons which are all the same" and pack them up as a new and higher photon
ENERGY quantum....if You could then You could also convert low energy Infrared to a high energy X-ray quantum.

And You continue to fall for the same con these cliamtologists "explain" photons while totally ignoring ALL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS..
They do just that....they are accumulating enough photons as low energy watt seconds till in their
strange minds they have according to Planck enough ENERGY in watt seconds to have a "black-body" emitt light at a shorter wavelength
i.e....then go on claim that they have managed to heat a hotter body with a colder one using the
low frequency "back-radiation"...


Unfortunately I have to go to the hospital now and leave it as that.

And whatever differences You have with wirebender You have to sort out with wirebender.
I don`t have the time to do this.

I dont think you are reading what SOD or I am writing.

the graphs of the two blackbodies, one at 10C and one at -10C, have exactly the same range of possible wavelengths for radiation, with the possible exception of very rare high energy photons at the flat area of the curve past the left side of the graph.

the graph of the 10C blackbody ENTIRELY contains the graph of the -10C blackbody! every photon made by the -10C body can be made by the 10C body. likewise every photon made by the 10C body can be made by the -10C body. the area from the top of the -10C curve to the 10C curve is the positive difference in radiation between the two, and it is all in the previous range of wavelengths. get it now?

both bodies produce the same types of radiation but the warmer one produces more radiation and at a higher average energy (shorter wavelength).

back radiation cancels out all the area under the -10C curve, and the area between the curves is the extra energy that is used to transfer heat. because a warmer object always radiates more than a cooler one, heat always flows from the warmer to the cooler. the graphs make this obvious.

your complaint about lower energy photons being unable to do specific types of work is a non sequitur. the only time when a warmer object wouldnt have the right amount of radiation to cancel out the cooler object's radiation is when one or the other is not a blackbody and the curve would be a different shape.

the earth's surface is quite close to a blackbody because it has many types of compounds that absorb and emit over a large range of wavelengths. the atmosphere is less of a blackbody because it has less constituents therefore less ability to absorb and emit over a wide range. CO2 by itself has a limited range of emission and absorbance.

the earth can absorb pretty much any type of radiation, the atmosphere less so, CO2 limited to specific bands.

one thing that I find interesting but I have never heard anyone talk about is what happens when the temp of the earth goes up or down. the 15 micron band is to the right of the highest intensity radiation. if the temp goes up then the 15 micron band will increase in absolute number but decrease in proportion to the overall output. this seems like a negative feedback to me. I have no idea if this would really affect things much but it seems like it would be a factor that should be compensated for. earth surface temps range from minus 60C to plus 40C.

 

[wirebender]

the 2nd law states that there can be no net flow of heat from colder to warmer.

ian, the second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. I have posted it for you numerous times and there is nothing whatsoever there about "net" energy flow. Again, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

"It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. "

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. "

So tell me ian, where do you see anything there about "net" energy flow? You don't. The second law doesn't say anything about "net" energy flow but somewhere along the way, you have bought a bill of goods so thoroughly that you can apparently look at the statement above and see the word "net" in there somewhere. The idea of "net" energy flow is in all likelyhood an artifact that resulted from the corruption of the Stefan-Boltzman law which you have also bought into. The argument in support of backradiation is circular in nature ian, sorry that you can't see it.

The idea of backradiation is supported by the corrupted version of the SB law which is supported by a corrupted statment on the 2ndl law of thermodynamics which the corrupted SB law introduces. You have bought into pseudoscience ian, not actual science. The second law of thermodynamics as stated above is science and I am sorry to tell you, but it doesn't support your view of the physical universe.

the cancelling out of radiation flow going in both directions is a mathematical calculation, not a physical obliteration of photons. and it certainly doesnt happen without the presence of matter.

Again ian, sorry that your very immature view of physics doesn't allow you to see what is actually happening. The cancelling out of radiation flow via the subtraction of EM fields is a very real phenomenon that is calculated, and put into actual physical practice by electrical engineers every day. Your view of the behavior of photons, on the other hand, is really nothing more than a mathematical artifiact and the result of a corruption of one of the laws of physics to boot.

you have put up zero evidence of this magical destructions of photons. you wont even pinpoint where this is supposed to happen. I have asked you dozens of times whether it happens at the surface, CO2 molecule or just in space but you refuse to give an answer.

Because it isn't magical ian. Apparently it is so far over your head (which is sad) that it only appears to be magic to you. When you subtract EM fields ian, what do you suppose you are subtracting? When the magnitude of an EM field diminishes, what do you suppose it has lost in order for it to be diminished? In order for you to grasp this ian, you are going to have to embrace particle-wave duality and until you do, this is going to look like magic to you and you are going to continue to misunderstand.

the closest I have come to finding something that supports your view is Claes Johnson's discussion on how he thinks the back radiation is reversed at the surface, much like reflection. no cancelling out, and the 'resonated reemission' is part of the radiation calculated for the earth's surface, not some extra bit. this calculation works out to exactly the same numbers as the 'corrupted version' of the S-B formula.

Johnson says no such thing. Again, your immature view of photons can not be applied to reality. Till you accept particle-wave duality, this will continue to escape you. As to the answer being the same with the corrupted version of the SB law, again, you fail to see the issue. The corrupted version of the SB law describes a physical process that is not happening. It describes a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in order to support a non physical phenomenon which allows a corruption of the 2nd law of thermodynamics all for the purpose of promoting AGW alarmism.

Without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism. Without corruptig the SB law, there can be no support of backradiation which in turn allows you to claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is describing net flows which, in reality, it is not.

It is unfortunate that the level of public education has dipped to the level that allows so many people to be taken in by that very bit of sleight of hand ian; and not just you, but scientists who should know better and whole generations are being taught that very bit of rubbish as if it were true.

one of the biggest problems in physics is being able to resolve what happens on a micro scale to the reality of the macro scale.

Your biggest problem with regard to what is happening here is your inability to understand and grasp wave particle duality. Till you get that ian, this will continue to go right over your head. Phenomena like EM interference, and cancellation can only be explained by looking at EM fields as waves. The phenomena are real and measurable, but not explainable if you assume EM fields are made up of discrete particles. Your thinking along this line is very immature and as a result, to rigid for you to actually grasp what is going on. You are stuck with particles and particles don't explain what is happening.

you are trying to switch back and forth from large to small scale.

No I am not ian, I have a grasp of particle wave duality and therefore am not confined within your small mental box trying to apply particle physics to a physical phenomenon that particle physics can not, and does not try to explain.

heat flow only goes in one direction but radiation flow goes in both.

Radiation can go in both directions if the frequencies are different, but we aren't talking about different frequencies. The frequency of IR changes as it passes through a CO2 molecule but it does not change enough to get outside of the broad band of IR being emitted by the surface of the earth. Cancellation, interference, and subtraction of EM fields is a very real, observable phenomenon ian and it can't be explained rationally by viewing EM fields as being made up of discrete particles. You have to look at EM fields as waves in order to explain what is happening in the real world. Your thinking isn't mature enough for that at this point so you are left calling it magic.

an excited molecule doesnt check to see if it is allowed to emit energy by radiation, it just emits. the photon doesnt care which direction it is heading in, it just goes. the photon doesnt care whether it has enough energy to warm a body or just cancel out radiation in the other direction leading to a 'net flow'. CO2 doesnt care if it is a good emitter and absorber at certain wavelengths and a poor one at others, it just is what it is regardless.

Yes, it just goes ian, but it goes in the direction of propagation of the EM field which has the larger magnitude. If it is in opposition to that field, it is expended (subtracted). Again, when you subtract EM fields, what do you think you are subtracting? The explanation on spencer's page by gord was ok. The block of wood being pushed on in two directions doesn't know, or care which direction it is supposed to go. It just moves in the direction of greater force. The photon can not move in a direction opposite to the direction from which the EM field with the larger magnitude was propagated.

do I like the surface radiation and atmospheric back radiation components in Trenberth's diagram? no, I think it should just show ~60W/m2 going up, perhaps with a side diagram showing the the calculation of radiation in both directions. do I think Trenberth has the right figures for the energy coming in and going out? I dont think it is exactly right but it is probably reasonably close.

At this point ian, I really don't care what you like and don't like and don't even take such things in consideration because you have demonstrated beyond even the smallest reasonable doubt that you simply don't get it. This whole subject is beyond you and as a result, you are operating from a position of faith, not any inherent knoledge. When you do bring bits of science forward in an attempt to support your position, it is clear that you don't understand what you are saying.

Until there is proof that that explanation is wrong, and accepted by more than a few fringe crackpots, I will continue to believe that CO2 is a factor in atmospheric processes but I will also continue to be sceptical of the high feedback values which lead to global warming alarmism.

There is proof that the explanation is wrong and hard, repeatable, observable proof that backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth does not exist. You can prove it yourself in your own back yard. I have done it in my back yard. If you would like plans for the experiment, I will gladly provide them to you.

You make a parabolic dish and point it into the sky on a sunny day. If you point it at the sun, you get a great deal of heat very quickly. But if you point it towards clear sky, even on a bright sunny day, the temperature at the bottom of the dish drops below the abient temperature. If backradiation were "beaming"back down to the surface of the earth and warming the surface, then there is no physical way the temperature in that dish could drop below the ambient temperature. The dish is behaving precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Heat is flowing from warm to cool and nothing is moving in the opposite direction. At night, you can cause ice to form in that dish if the ambient temperature is around 45 degrees. Even lower if the humidity is lower.

There is hard, observable, repeatable evidence that the claim of backradiation is wrong ian but like the scientists who have a financial stake in AGW alarmism, my bet is that you wll ignore what you can see in favor of faith.

wirebender, care to explain where and how all these photons magically disappear? in the real world and not in some calculation?

First, there is no magic. It only appears to be magic to you because it is beyond your understanding. Do you deny that EM fields interfere with, and cancel each other out and this phenomenon is measurable? If you do, then you are well and truely full of BS. Since the phenomenon of cancellation and interference happens, and one EM field can be reduced in magnitude by another and can be measured, what do you suppose is being subtracted? The answer is photons ian. It looks like magic to you because your thinking hasn't matured to encompass particle wave duality. The answer lies there and till you can grasp it, this will remain over your head.

You are the one who is engaging in magical thinking ian. Cancellation and interference are real, measurable phenomenon that happen without the presence of matter and can not be explained by the view that EM fields are composed of particles and yet, you continue to hold the rigid belief that EM fields are particles even though phenomena are happening that can't be explained by your belief.

 

[wirebender]

Ian please stop using science of doom as a reference.. he is a 7th grade teacher who was let go from his job as a PR man for the NOAA.. And he routinely does the same crap spencer does using half-science mixed with speculation and twisted logic..

Seriously, He is a PR man cashing in..

Science of doom as a scientific reference. You may as well reference Archie comics.

 

[wirebender]

Ian please stop using science of doom as a reference.. he is a 7th grade teacher who was let go from his job as a PR man for the NOAA.. And he routinely does the same crap spencer does using half-science mixed with speculation and twisted logic..

Seriously, He is a PR man cashing in..

as usual you add nothing to the conversation. the only thing different is that you insult someone other than me.

do you have some sort of explanation as to how photons of the same wavelength and energy are sometimes absorbed and sometimes not, depending on the temperature of the object radiating them?

it sure makes things a lot easier to imagine with both objects radiating towards each other and heat flowing in the direction of net radiation.

Ian, it has been explained to you over and over. The fact that the explanation is over your head or in opposition to your faith, or both does not change the fact that it has been explained.

 

[wirebender]

the TOA emission measured from satellites show that the 15 micron band has been strongly reduced by passing through the atmosphere. obviously the 15 micron band has been transformed into some other type/wavelength of radiation before the energy escaped.

That is simply not true. You have bought another bill of goods from someone who didn't show you the whole picture and you either didn't grasp that you weren't being shown the whole picture or you didn't care because the partial picture meshed wtih your belief. Here is the whole picture:

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. Where do you see evidence of a reduction of outgoing LWR in the 15 micrometer band?

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. The reduction you claim is output from the models as indicated by the blue line, not any actual decrease. You are accepting the output from a model as if it were actual data.

 

[wirebender]

and just to be clear, he is not saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics is imaginary. he is saying that some people's interpretation of the 2nd law is imaginary. I believe he is referring to Claes Johnson, who has been parroted in an even crazier form by wirebender who claims the photons are not just bounced but actually obliterated in space without the need of matter to be present.

Once more ian, when you subtract EM fields, what do you believe you are subtracting?

 

[wirebender]

the only thing he called 'imaginary' was the faulty interpretation of the 2nd law. but I will go back and reread it to make sure.

The second law is a statement ian, it doesn't require interpretation and it states pretty clearly that heat can not flow from cold to warm without some work having been done to accomplish the task and absorption and emission do not constitute work.

 

[wirebender]

fifth and sixth utterances. still aimed at the twisted version of the 2nd law that wirebender espouses.

Ian, this is the version of the second law of thermodynamics upon which I base my position:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. "

It is the only version of the 2nd law I have ever referenced because it is, in fact, THE second law of thermodynamics. Any deviation from that law, as stated above would render a twisted version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Now ian, it is you who believes that heat can flow from cold to warm and you who believes in net flows in opposition to what the 2nd law actually says, so it is you, ian, who is operating from a twisted version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[polarbear]

Ian please stop using science of doom as a reference.. he is a 7th grade teacher who was let go from his job as a PR man for the NOAA.. And he routinely does the same crap spencer does using half-science mixed with speculation and twisted logic..

Seriously, He is a PR man cashing in..

Science of doom as a scientific reference. You may as well reference Archie comics.

Hi guys, right now some other relatives are staying with my daughter @ the ICU, giving me a lunch break @ home.
So I looked in here while I`m waiting for my dinner...

I can`t believe what I am reading here...seldom have I seen statements as ridiculous. For example what IanC has written in post # #283

every photon made by the -10C body can be made by the 10C body. likewise every photon made by the 10C body can be made by the -10C body

I beginning to wonder if Ian or this 7th grade teacher who he keeps quoting ever seen a spectroscope...

Lets see if a "body" at a lower "black-body" temperature can make every photon a hotter one can make...:

2,700–3,300 K Incandescent light bulb...:

1,850 K Candle flame,...:

It is futile to discuss physics with somebody who continues to use the same absurd kindergarten interpretations of what a photon is...

and this is also the reason why so few physics professionals bother with crap like "trenberth`s energy budget"....heating a hotter black body with a colder one etc etc...

This garbage is written specifically for people below a certain IQ and with only limited education....
So how could it possibly be debunked if the people who are falling for it lack the education to understand the explanation...
You might as well try convincing some jungle tribe that it was`nt their chicken sacrifices that caused the rain which put out the forest fire.

Anyway IanC, it started out as an interesting discussion like some TV show with an interesting title to catch one`s attention.. and a few minutes into the show they are "explaining" paranormal activity and "negative energy"....which they say nobody else (conventional science) has explained ...so it must be true... I have seen enough,.... and know when to pull the plug

 

[wirebender]

You are right polarbear. Till ian's thinking matures he isn't going to be equipped to even glimps what is happening here, much less understand it. He is stuck on photons as discrete particles and till he gets past that, he will remain behind the curve.

By the way, I hope nothing to serious is going on with your daughter.

 

[gslack]

Not sure if this may help with the concept overall but I will try once more..

Ian remember spencers experiment?

He mentions the plate being heated to 150 F?

Okay are we to assume he means the heat source is through a thermostat which keeps enough energy (electricity) flowing in it to keep it at that temp? or it is limited to enough energy required to make that plate that temperature? See the difference? With a thermostat to regulate it we are observing the temperature and not necessarily the energy directly just the result. The amount of energy it would take could change with environment, variables, insulators, heat sinks, et al. with the concern being the temperature. However if we were wanting to maintain the same energy input that would cause the plate to reach 150F with the set parameters and environment at the beginning any insulating body would require less energy to create 150F temperature in that plate.

So which are we concerned with the energy input to output vs back from the second plate or the heat?

One big problem I see with it is he mixes the two concepts giving the impression they are one and the same, When they are not.In his experiment Energy = cause, heat = effect... Changing parameters like adding another body in close enough proximity to allow reflected heat to factor into it (as he claims) would have to change the energy input from the source if we were concerned with maintaining 150F temperature, but he claims the source stays the same.. In which way does it stay the same? Input energy or output heat?

he does not specify that I read anyway, anything like that other then the 150F for the first plate. So to me even IF he could cause the temperature the first plate to rise (which i think not) it wouldn't be applicable to atmospheric activity on our planet anyway.

Even IF backradiation existed, it would amount to virtually no significance when you realize the loss of energy in the work involved at each stage of transfer. We have to take into account all other manner in which heat is transferred in the atmosphere and the surface, and the constant flow of the formless gasses due to their temperature, wind, pressure, concentration, and cloud cover...

The problem here is too many educated people (along with uneducated) that have focused on one aspect so intently they forget the bigger picture and fuss inconsequential factors that do nothing when taken into proper context with the whole.. They would love to see the forest but they have the damn tree in their way...

a bit late to finally start thinking about the problem isnt it? oh well, better late than never.

as I previously pointed out....input equals output. the two options are as follows

1. the input of electricity remains at 750w and the heated bar increases temperature when the second bar is placed next to it.

2. the electricity is decreased to keep the heated bar at 150F, by 75w the last time I explained it, and the container is cooled because it is only receiving 675w instead of 750w.

(inputs, outputs and temps at equilibrium)

Douchebag, you keep insulting me and condescending on me , and then turn around and try to play friendly? **** YOU ASSHOLE!!!

Don't you even think for one minute you have the mental, physical, or even educational muscle to condescend on me you little weaseling internet wannabe..

You don't know squat, you have been playing scientists so long you started to believe it.. You didn't recognize any of the most basic principles any of us have brought forth all you have done is google terms and other peoples work or explanations, you haven't expressed a single original thought or anything in your own words other simply calling us wrong and insulting me..

GO shit in your hat you fraud.. You are done playing fake scientists with me, and I am done being even remotely tolerant of your immature bullshit any longer.. You just insulted me for the last time lowlife...

Now I told you from the get go the basic issues in the experiment, you fraud. You went and made up new parameters and new examples to defend it and confound the topic..

BTW, douchebag, your response did not address the point I made.. All you did again was ramble bullshit and talk in a circle..

Point remains: Temperature and power are not the same thing.. IF you limit or increase power to maintain the temperature you change the output of the power source, and that makes the entire experiment pointless in its claim..

Catching on yet dumbass? Changing power input to make a set temp is not what the sun does asshole.. Temperature is a measure of heat, energy is what causes that heat you incompetent imbecile.. They are not one and the same.. Its the same problem you have with polarbear trying to show you the your mistake with work in his posts..

You incompetent, incoherent, fraudulent, posturing phony, you cannot even keep two concepts separate and have the nerve to try and condescend on me?

Go and play scientists with people dumber than yourself all you want, but do not try your act with me asshole..

 

[IanC]

wirebender, care to explain where and how all these photons magically disappear? in the real world and not in some calculation?

First, there is no magic. It only appears to be magic to you because it is beyond your understanding. Do you deny that EM fields interfere with, and cancel each other out and this phenomenon is measurable? If you do, then you are well and truely full of BS. Since the phenomenon of cancellation and interference happens, and one EM field can be reduced in magnitude by another and can be measured, what do you suppose is being subtracted? The answer is photons ian. It looks like magic to you because your thinking hasn't matured to encompass particle wave duality. The answer lies there and till you can grasp it, this will remain over your head.

You are the one who is engaging in magical thinking ian. Cancellation and interference are real, measurable phenomenon that happen without the presence of matter and can not be explained by the view that EM fields are composed of particles and yet, you continue to hold the rigid belief that EM fields are particles even though phenomena are happening that can't be explained by your belief.

you keep saying that I am the one with faulty understanding of the duality of photons but it is you that is confused on this topic and others.

opposing photon waveforms do show interference patterns according to how they match up in orientation. here is a diagram of two waves that add together to form a standing wave that is twice the amplitude of the original waves. by changing the phase you could get the waves to cancel out but a straight flat line isnt very informative

.....
4. a standing wave does not tranfer energy(its two components however, do transfer energy in their respective directions)

Google Image Result for http://www.a-levelphysicstutor.com/images/waves/statw-formation.jpg

you are mistaking interference patterns for actual change in the photons. the photons go through the area of waveform interference and emerge totally unchanged and in the same direction as before. they continue on their path until they are absorbed by a particle of matter that is capable of interacting with them.

 

[IanC]

Not sure if this may help with the concept overall but I will try once more..

Ian remember spencers experiment?

He mentions the plate being heated to 150 F?

Okay are we to assume he means the heat source is through a thermostat which keeps enough energy (electricity) flowing in it to keep it at that temp? or it is limited to enough energy required to make that plate that temperature? See the difference? With a thermostat to regulate it we are observing the temperature and not necessarily the energy directly just the result. The amount of energy it would take could change with environment, variables, insulators, heat sinks, et al. with the concern being the temperature. However if we were wanting to maintain the same energy input that would cause the plate to reach 150F with the set parameters and environment at the beginning any insulating body would require less energy to create 150F temperature in that plate.

So which are we concerned with the energy input to output vs back from the second plate or the heat?

One big problem I see with it is he mixes the two concepts giving the impression they are one and the same, When they are not.In his experiment Energy = cause, heat = effect... Changing parameters like adding another body in close enough proximity to allow reflected heat to factor into it (as he claims) would have to change the energy input from the source if we were concerned with maintaining 150F temperature, but he claims the source stays the same.. In which way does it stay the same? Input energy or output heat?

he does not specify that I read anyway, anything like that other then the 150F for the first plate. So to me even IF he could cause the temperature the first plate to rise (which i think not) it wouldn't be applicable to atmospheric activity on our planet anyway.

Even IF backradiation existed, it would amount to virtually no significance when you realize the loss of energy in the work involved at each stage of transfer. We have to take into account all other manner in which heat is transferred in the atmosphere and the surface, and the constant flow of the formless gasses due to their temperature, wind, pressure, concentration, and cloud cover...

The problem here is too many educated people (along with uneducated) that have focused on one aspect so intently they forget the bigger picture and fuss inconsequential factors that do nothing when taken into proper context with the whole.. They would love to see the forest but they have the damn tree in their way...

a bit late to finally start thinking about the problem isnt it? oh well, better late than never.

as I previously pointed out....input equals output. the two options are as follows

1. the input of electricity remains at 750w and the heated bar increases temperature when the second bar is placed next to it.

2. the electricity is decreased to keep the heated bar at 150F, by 75w the last time I explained it, and the container is cooled because it is only receiving 675w instead of 750w.

(inputs, outputs and temps at equilibrium)

Douchebag, you keep insulting me and condescending on me , and then turn around and try to play friendly? **** YOU ASSHOLE!!!

Don't you even think for one minute you have the mental, physical, or even educational muscle to condescend on me you little weaseling internet wannabe..

You don't know squat, you have been playing scientists so long you started to believe it.. You didn't recognize any of the most basic principles any of us have brought forth all you have done is google terms and other peoples work or explanations, you haven't expressed a single original thought or anything in your own words other simply calling us wrong and insulting me..

GO shit in your hat you fraud.. You are done playing fake scientists with me, and I am done being even remotely tolerant of your immature bullshit any longer.. You just insulted me for the last time lowlife...

Now I told you from the get go the basic issues in the experiment, you fraud. You went and made up new parameters and new examples to defend it and confound the topic..

BTW, douchebag, your response did not address the point I made.. All you did again was ramble bullshit and talk in a circle..

Point remains: Temperature and power are not the same thing.. IF you limit or increase power to maintain the temperature you change the output of the power source, and that makes the entire experiment pointless in its claim..

Catching on yet dumbass? Changing power input to make a set temp is not what the sun does asshole.. Temperature is a measure of heat, energy is what causes that heat you incompetent imbecile.. They are not one and the same.. Its the same problem you have with polarbear trying to show you the your mistake with work in his posts..

You incompetent, incoherent, fraudulent, posturing phony, you cannot even keep two concepts separate and have the nerve to try and condescend on me?

Go and play scientists with people dumber than yourself all you want, but do not try your act with me asshole..

back to ranting and ad homs? not surprising. I am sorry that you feel I am condescending to you but that is only your opinion of what I have said, probably born out of your own fear that you are at a severe disadvantage in a debate over scientific concepts.

I am somewhat amused that you think Spencer would change the power input into the heated bar according to a thermostat set for 150F when the whole concept of the experiment is to find the change in temperature when the second bar is added. that is just as ridiculous as wirebender changing the temperature of the container even though Spencer specifically defined it as 0F. and then you guys pretend that Spencer made the mistake!?!?

anyways, back to your comment. as I previously explained to you, the bar temp goes up if the power input remains the same. the container temp is cooled (at least less energy is needed to keep it at 0F than when the heater was receiving full power) when the power is reduced to keep the bar at 150F. do you understand the concept of input=output? I think it is funny that you insulted me for bringing up this scenario previously (and explaining it), while you think you are brilliant and original for bringing it up yourself! I suppose you didnt understand it the first time and you probably dont understand it now. hahahahahaha

 

[wirebender]

you are mistaking interference patterns for actual change in the photons. the photons go through the area of waveform interference and emerge totally unchanged and in the same direction as before. they continue on their path until they are absorbed by a particle of matter that is capable of interacting with them.

I am not mistaking anything ian. As I have told you before, if two EM fields are propagated in the same direction, even a weaker field will add to the magnitude of the other. Interesting that you pick an example of two waves that are propagated in the same direction in an effort to prove that they do not reduce each other if propagated from different directions.

Face it ian, you are wrong and till you learn a bit more or have some sort of revelation, you will continue to be wrong.

 

[IanC]

I can`t believe what I am reading here...seldom have I seen statements as ridiculous. For example what IanC has written in post # #283

every photon made by the -10C body can be made by the 10C body. likewise every photon made by the 10C body can be made by the -10C body

I beginning to wonder if Ian or this 7th grade teacher who he keeps quoting ever seen a spectroscope...

Lets see if a "body" at a lower "black-body" temperature can make every photon a hotter one can make...:

It is futile to discuss physics with somebody who continues to use the same absurd kindergarten interpretations of what a photon is...

and this is also the reason why so few physics professionals bother with crap like "trenberth`s energy budget"....heating a hotter black body with a colder one etc etc...

This garbage is written specifically for people below a certain IQ and with only limited education....
So how could it possibly be debunked if the people who are falling for it lack the education to understand the explanation...
You might as well try convincing some jungle tribe that it was`nt their chicken sacrifices that caused the rain which put out the forest fire.

Anyway IanC, it started out as an interesting discussion like some TV show with an interesting title to catch one`s attention.. and a few minutes into the show they are "explaining" paranormal activity and "negative energy"....which they say nobody else (conventional science) has explained ...so it must be true... I have seen enough,.... and know when to pull the plug

ho hum, more ad homs

your pretty pictures seem to be incomplete.

Figure 1. A blackbody radiation curve at T=2800K, which is a typical operating temperature of a 100W incandescent bulb. Approximately 88% of the light is emitted in the infrared region. BB: blackbody.

this graph comes from a paper on how to make more efficient lightbulbs by sequestering the wasted IR.

Recycling processes have previously been developed in the form of reflecting envelopes using either a dielectric metal film stack1,2 or a dielectric multi-layered film.3 However, for both structures the reflectance in the near-infrared region is not high enough to bounce back all the infrared light. To overcome these limitations, we employed a two-dimensional metallic photonic band gap (PBG) filter architecture to enclose the incandescent filament. The filter acts as a perfect transmitter for the useful visible light and a perfect reflector for the undesirable infrared light. The reflected light is re-absorbed which, in turn, helps to heat up the filament. This infrared recycling process has two major energy consequences. First, it reduces the amount of electricity required to maintain a hot filament and thus improves electric-to-optical conversion efficiency. Second, it reduces the thermal radiation of the bulb as infrared photons cannot escape.

hmmmm.......that seems to go totally against wirebenders 'imaginary' 2nd law of thermodynamics! intersting paper. while the glass bulb of an ordinary light cuts off a lot of the infrared, the coating in frosted ones also cuts down on IR transmission. test it yourself if you have clear bulbs in your bathrooms.

I couldnt find the same flourescent light as in polarbear's picture. perhaps the unlabelled y axis is part of the problem.

flourescent lights do not emit like a blackbody. the curve is a different shape because it uses specific atomic bands of emission.

sodium lights are even less like a blackbody

 

[gslack]

a bit late to finally start thinking about the problem isnt it? oh well, better late than never.

as I previously pointed out....input equals output. the two options are as follows

1. the input of electricity remains at 750w and the heated bar increases temperature when the second bar is placed next to it.

2. the electricity is decreased to keep the heated bar at 150F, by 75w the last time I explained it, and the container is cooled because it is only receiving 675w instead of 750w.

(inputs, outputs and temps at equilibrium)

Douchebag, you keep insulting me and condescending on me , and then turn around and try to play friendly? **** YOU ASSHOLE!!!

Don't you even think for one minute you have the mental, physical, or even educational muscle to condescend on me you little weaseling internet wannabe..

You don't know squat, you have been playing scientists so long you started to believe it.. You didn't recognize any of the most basic principles any of us have brought forth all you have done is google terms and other peoples work or explanations, you haven't expressed a single original thought or anything in your own words other simply calling us wrong and insulting me..

GO shit in your hat you fraud.. You are done playing fake scientists with me, and I am done being even remotely tolerant of your immature bullshit any longer.. You just insulted me for the last time lowlife...

Now I told you from the get go the basic issues in the experiment, you fraud. You went and made up new parameters and new examples to defend it and confound the topic..

BTW, douchebag, your response did not address the point I made.. All you did again was ramble bullshit and talk in a circle..

Point remains: Temperature and power are not the same thing.. IF you limit or increase power to maintain the temperature you change the output of the power source, and that makes the entire experiment pointless in its claim..

Catching on yet dumbass? Changing power input to make a set temp is not what the sun does asshole.. Temperature is a measure of heat, energy is what causes that heat you incompetent imbecile.. They are not one and the same.. Its the same problem you have with polarbear trying to show you the your mistake with work in his posts..

You incompetent, incoherent, fraudulent, posturing phony, you cannot even keep two concepts separate and have the nerve to try and condescend on me?

Go and play scientists with people dumber than yourself all you want, but do not try your act with me asshole..

back to ranting and ad homs? not surprising. I am sorry that you feel I am condescending to you but that is only your opinion of what I have said, probably born out of your own fear that you are at a severe disadvantage in a debate over scientific concepts.

I am somewhat amused that you think Spencer would change the power input into the heated bar according to a thermostat set for 150F when the whole concept of the experiment is to find the change in temperature when the second bar is added. that is just as ridiculous as wirebender changing the temperature of the container even though Spencer specifically defined it as 0F. and then you guys pretend that Spencer made the mistake!?!?

anyways, back to your comment. as I previously explained to you, the bar temp goes up if the power input remains the same. the container temp is cooled (at least less energy is needed to keep it at 0F than when the heater was receiving full power) when the power is reduced to keep the bar at 150F. do you understand the concept of input=output? I think it is funny that you insulted me for bringing up this scenario previously (and explaining it), while you think you are brilliant and original for bringing it up yourself! I suppose you didnt understand it the first time and you probably dont understand it now. hahahahahaha

IanC you have just shown how immature and ignorant you are..

back to ranting and ad homs? not surprising. I am sorry that you feel I am condescending to you but that is only your opinion of what I have said, probably born out of your own fear that you are at a severe disadvantage in a debate over scientific concepts.

No you little lowlife you have gone back and forth insulting and the pretending we insult you over and again for weeks now. You were condescending again and the fact you try and deny this is all the more pathetic..

I am somewhat amused that you think Spencer would change the power input into the heated bar according to a thermostat set for 150F when the whole concept of the experiment is to find the change in temperature when the second bar is added. that is just as ridiculous as wirebender changing the temperature of the container even though Spencer specifically defined it as 0F. and then you guys pretend that Spencer made the mistake!?!?

Your words your previous post to me:

"the electricity is decreased to keep the heated bar at 150F, by 75w the last time I explained it, and the container is cooled because it is only receiving 675w instead of 750w."

Your words above:

I am somewhat amused that you think Spencer would change the power input into the heated bar according to a thermostat set for 150F when the whole concept of the experiment is to find the change in temperature when the second bar is added.

Recognize them? You better dumbass they are your words...

So...whats your excuse this time? You just said one thing and then tried to make it seem ridiculous I would think that one thing..So, which is this time dancing bear does he change the input level or not? Or does he change it then not change to suit your silly posturing ass?

Got an explanation didpshit? NO?????? Didn't think you would.. Now dance boy!

anyways, back to your comment. as I previously explained to you, the bar temp goes up if the power input remains the same.

Really? Hows that work? What planet does something get hotter with less energy input?

the container temp is cooled (at least less energy is needed to keep it at 0F than when the heater was receiving full power) when the power is reduced to keep the bar at 150F.

Yes yes and what exactly does this address regarding my post or contention, other than the fact your are once again talking out of your ass? nice way to dodge and divert dancing bear..

do you understand the concept of input=output? I think it is funny that you insulted me for bringing up this scenario previously (and explaining it), while you think you are brilliant and original for bringing it up yourself! I suppose you didnt understand it the first time and you probably dont understand it now. hahahahahaha

Yes I do it seems you don't though because you made a contention then denied making it or was it I made it then you denied I made it? Does it matter? After all you knew that too didnt ya phony.. Sure ya did because you know everything don't ya... You even talked about this before but didn't if its wrong... Sure pal sure..

IanC, you want to explain to me how it is a self proclaimed expert on this didn't recognize fermats theorem? How about the fact you didn't know the two-slit experiment? Remember what you told me about that experiment genius? Oh I sure do.. YOU told me you can't learn about physics watching waves in a liquid... LOL..

Now dance, and squirm and google up terms to try and save face phony, but from here on out I will make sure I remind you how, when and where you got outed as a fake..

 

[IanC]

you are mistaking interference patterns for actual change in the photons. the photons go through the area of waveform interference and emerge totally unchanged and in the same direction as before. they continue on their path until they are absorbed by a particle of matter that is capable of interacting with them.

I am not mistaking anything ian. As I have told you before, if two EM fields are propagated in the same direction, even a weaker field will add to the magnitude of the other. Interesting that you pick an example of two waves that are propagated in the same direction in an effort to prove that they do not reduce each other if propagated from different directions.

Face it ian, you are wrong and till you learn a bit more or have some sort of revelation, you will continue to be wrong.

geez, you are a total train wreck. you will say anything wont you?

here you go, I should have put this one up instead anyways.

from the same article that wirebender said the waves were in the same direction. I would paste the text but it doesnt seem to work.

 

[wirebender]

Sorry ian, you are so caught up in trying to prove that you are right that you simply can't see how wrong you are. I hope for you that you don't end up living your entire life like.

We are done. I proved my point on the first try and my proof stands. You, on the other hand have failed at every turn for the simple reason that you are wrong. Enough said. Life is to short to waste it on people who can't, or more importantly won't learn.