AGW: atmospheric physics

[gslack]

numan had it wrong.

it's not so much you have to worry getting fleas from lying down with dogs as it is that when you get down in the mud to wrestle pigs, the pigs enjoy it.

Aww that's big of you... numans a pig or mudd? Or are you the pig?

Sorry Ian your ADD/ADHD must be caused by a contagion, I think I have it too.. Seems to come on every time I hear or see someone throwing another under the bus...

Way to show your true nature Ian, don't correct them when they are wrong, just wait until you are asked to defend one their claims then throw em under that bus...

 

[gslack]

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.

Prove it. Simple as that. Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature. Otherwise...you are just talking.

we have been over this, time and again. does all radiation stop in an area that is all at the same temperature? if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question.

Fine example of BS there IAn... Here's what just transpired in a nutshell...

PB: The heat flows out from hot to cold..

IanC: So you are saying that energy from the cold makes a conscious decision to not flow out?

See? It's retarded.. That's not verbatim but it is what you pull Ian...You just pulled it again... Rather than answer the question or propose a legitimate counter, you make a wild claim and pretend it's theirs..

No point in the fake scientist crap if these are your methods Ian, it tells the truth on you...And the fact the exact same tactic is used by 3 others in this, we can make some safe assumptions about you and them.

That is why I am going do this, and laugh at you..



Want serious discourse? Then be genuine and honest, and worthy of it. Otherwise, you get the dancing poop sign...

 

[SSDD]

at night only longwave IR from a cold atmosphere comes in but the longwave IR from the object at the focal point is free to leave of course.

the light from the sun is more energetic than the IR from the object in the solar oven, which in turn is more energetic than the radiation coming down from a cold atmosphere.

You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Prove it. Simple as that. Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature. Otherwise...you are just talking.

we have been over this, time and again. does all radiation stop in an area that is all at the same temperature? if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question.

I repeat...we have no problem observing and measuring radiation in any direction...except back. You can't meausre it because it doesn't exist. You would think that you guys would get that.

I if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question

How does the rock know which way to fall? How does the marble on the incline know which way to roll? How does the water know which way to flow....Answer...they don't need to know. The laws of nature don't give them any other chocie. Radiation does not go back to be reabsorbed by its source...and a cool object doesn't radiate to a warmer object for the same reason...the laws of nature give it no other choice.

 

[gslack]

Prove it. Simple as that. Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature. Otherwise...you are just talking.

we have been over this, time and again. does all radiation stop in an area that is all at the same temperature? if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question.

I repeat...we have no problem observing and measuring radiation in any direction...except back. You can't meausre it because it doesn't exist. You would think that you guys would get that.

SSD, I have tried what you are trying now with Ian several times. It will come to a point where he will be cornered and unable to logically argue his side any longer, and then he will do Ian usual and feign incomprehension and blame you and your "stupidity, verbiage, lack of understanding, whatever" and make false claims about your posts and ask you to defend them..

It's his MO, the bad part is his socks have the same character flaws. Pressure them they react the same way. Don't get too wrapped up into this he will just waste your time when he can't handle it...

 

[IanC]

at night only longwave IR from a cold atmosphere comes in but the longwave IR from the object at the focal point is free to leave of course.

the light from the sun is more energetic than the IR from the object in the solar oven, which in turn is more energetic than the radiation coming down from a cold atmosphere.

You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.

you are absolutely correct! and for exactly the same reasons I gave earlier. the back radiation from the sky is less than the forward radiation from the object in the solar oven, therefore the object will lose heat to the atmosphere. it is only semantics as to whether you want to call radiation from the object forward radiation or back radiation. both are happening continuously, and affect the temperature gain or loss of the objects involved.

edit- when I said you were correct, I meant that the atmosphere in daytime can be cooler than surface temperature, not that there is no 'back radiation'. would you care do define 'back radiation'?

 

[IanC]

Prove it. Simple as that. Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature. Otherwise...you are just talking.

we have been over this, time and again. does all radiation stop in an area that is all at the same temperature? if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question.

I repeat...we have no problem observing and measuring radiation in any direction...except back. You can't meausre it because it doesn't exist. You would think that you guys would get that.

I if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question

How does the rock know which way to fall? How does the marble on the incline know which way to roll? How does the water know which way to flow....Answer...they don't need to know. The laws of nature don't give them any other chocie. Radiation does not go back to be reabsorbed by its source...and a cool object doesn't radiate to a warmer object for the same reason...the laws of nature give it no other choice.

all objects radiate continuously according to their temperature, in a random direction which is not affected by outside influences.

 

[IanC]

How does the rock know which way to fall? How does the marble on the incline know which way to roll? How does the water know which way to flow....Answer...they don't need to know. The laws of nature don't give them any other chocie. Radiation does not go back to be reabsorbed by its source...and a cool object doesn't radiate to a warmer object for the same reason...the laws of nature give it no other choice.

it is easy to predict and describe the flow of water downhill due to gravity. is there some analogue to gravity that I have never heard of that affects radiation? please link up some information on it. I would be very interested.

 

[gslack]

 

[IlarMeilyr]

When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?

 

[mamooth]

Now it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures...

It's not a contention, it's an observation of how the real world works. If I point a 40 watt desk lamp at a 60 watt desk lamp, the 60 watt desk lamp gets hotter.

which also means that the heat sink fins of a power transistor should fry a power transistor in a vacuum chamber...

Only if you subscribe to the retarded notion that all of the heat from a heat sink fin must radiate straight to the other fin. Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.

And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bull-freaking-shit.

Again, you don't have a clue about what a black body is, or how it works.

Any other 'tards here want to back up PolarBear's nutty claim about how a dark object radiates more at the same temperature?

If only the world knew that they could make heat sinks more effective by painting them flat black. Once more, PolarBear has made an amazing new discovery in physics that the rest of humanity had somehow missed.

 

[IanC]

When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?

as you can see from the Planck graphs for two objects that differ by 20C, they both are capable of the same wavelengths of radiation and the only difference is that the warmer one produces more radiation and at a slightly higher average energy. if you were only interested in the next photon from each, then there is a significant chance that the cooler object may radiate a higher energy photon at the warmer object than the warmer object sends back at the cooler one. but after a few million exchanges (and unmatched extra photons from the warmer object) the SLoT has been proved statistically yet again for macro systems, even if occasional atoms sometimes lose more energy than they gain in a swap on the warmer side. if the warmer side was not receiving 'back radiation' from the cooler object it would cool very quickly.

 

[polarbear]

Now it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures...

It's not a contention, it's an observation of how the real world works. If I point a 40 watt desk lamp at a 60 watt desk lamp, the 60 watt desk lamp gets hotter.

which also means that the heat sink fins of a power transistor should fry a power transistor in a vacuum chamber...

Only if you subscribe to the retarded notion that all of the heat from a heat sink fin must radiate straight to the other fin. Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.

And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bull-freaking-shit.

Again, you don't have a clue about what a black body is, or how it works.

Any other 'tards here want to back up PolarBear's nutty claim about how a dark object radiates more at the same temperature?

If only the world knew that they could make heat sinks more effective by painting them flat black. Once more, PolarBear has made an amazing new discovery in physics that the rest of humanity had somehow missed.

Yeah? How much you wanna bet?
Are you too dumb to try it out yourself?
And you are one of the few "of humanity had somehow missed" ,why that is so!!!
Carbon: candle soot emissivity 0.95
Glass emissivity 0.92

It`s not an "amazing discovery" either.
The fact that black objects radiate more heat per time has been used all over the place.
That`s why power transistor heat sinks are black.

That`s why high performance radiators are black:

Even a dummy like you should know that:
Why are car radiators painted black

Why are car radiators painted black?

Car radiators are painted black because it emits the most heat through radiation (highest emissivity). This improves the heat transfer out of the radiator when air isn't moving through the radiator.

Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.

Quit your fucking name calling and do it in your "numan footprint" / "I used to be a nuclear engineer" thread where you belong !!!

 

[SSDD]

you are absolutely correct! and for exactly the same reasons I gave earlier. the back radiation from the sky is less than the forward radiation from the object in the solar oven, therefore the object will lose heat to the atmosphere. it is only semantics as to whether you want to call radiation from the object forward radiation or back radiation. both are happening continuously, and affect the temperature gain or loss of the objects involved.

I am absolutely correct when I say that there is no backradiation. Don't you think it could be measured at ambient temperature if it were happening?

would you care do define 'back radiation'?

The climate science and the IPCC defined it...in their own bible.

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth.

 

[SSDD]

all objects radiate continuously according to their temperature, in a random direction which is not affected by outside influences.

So you keep saying...except that you can't prove it...and there is no law that says that objects must radiate in all directions. Just because a mathematical or computer model says that it is so, and because you believe it doesn't make it so. There is a profound difference between the actual world and the world depicted in computer models.

 

[SSDD]

it is easy to predict and describe the flow of water downhill due to gravity. is there some analogue to gravity that I have never heard of that affects radiation? please link up some information on it. I would be very interested.

Why be obtuse? You asked how radiation knows which way to go. I pointed out that rocks don't have to know which way to fall. Then I clearly stated that rocks fall for the same reason cool objects don't radiate to warm objects...the laws of nature leave no other choice.

If you had a real argument and the laws of nature were on your side, you wouldn't have to twist statements that I know you are bright enough to understand into something that they aren't.

 

[SSDD]

When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?

Not one single observed, measured example of it happening at ambient temperature ever in the history of the universe.

 

[SSDD]

It's not a contention, it's an observation of how the real world works. If I point a 40 watt desk lamp at a 60 watt desk lamp, the 60 watt desk lamp gets hotter.

Not the filament and that is the emitter. If it got hotter, it would get brighter and if it got brighter you could measure the difference.

 

[SSDD]

as you can see from the Planck graphs for two objects that differ by 20C, they both are capable of the same wavelengths of radiation and the only difference is that the warmer one produces more radiation and at a slightly higher average energy.

And that is key. Any difference at all, no matter how small means that the energy flow is in one direction...high to low. Any in the other direction would be a move from more entropy to less and that absolutely can not happen. It would be the basis for a perpetual motion machine.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah? How much you wanna bet?
Are you too dumb to try it out yourself?
And you are one of the few "of humanity had somehow missed" ,why that is so!!!
Carbon: candle soot emissivity 0.95
Glass emissivity 0.92

Did it myself this afternoon over about an hour and a half. I was surprised at how much more quickly the water in the blackened glass cooled down. I used a candle as I don't have a torch.

Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source. I told him what sort of heater I had and asked if it would be acceptable (reptitherm lizzard heater pad) and a 33 quart crawfish steamer.

I have an 8 watt, not a 4 watt and it reached a temp of about 121.2 in the open air. The poster claimed that it would boil water eventually running only 10 hours a day. I have been running it continuously now for 2 weeks and the water hasn't even reached the temperature of the pad in the air.

I strongly suspect that it never will what with the area of the water being so much larger than the area of the heater...my bet is that I can run this thing till the cows come home and will never see a temperature much above the 89.8 that it seems to be hovering at.