AGW: atmospheric physics

[polarbear]

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.

See what`s happening here..
If one of them gets nailed :

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... Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.

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.

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.

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.

Then the other sock puppets bury it as quickly as they can.

"IanC", "Mamymouth", "Saigon", "numan" they all take turns and bury it as quick as they can with as many posts as possible within a few minutes.
I got something for you and "IanC".
IanComplained about the thermistor in the telescope.
My boys wanted to see how you can make a parabolic reflector anyway and today the conditions were perfect to show just how full of crap these computer models are. So I made one out of some scarp wood and Alcan foil.
Observe:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mni84TnYsNg&feature=youtu.be"]Solar Radiation - YouTube[/ame]

Solar radiation drops a lot just 3 hours past high noon even though there was a clear sky then. At noon with thin overcast at +10 C the thermometer in front of the mirror registered +45 C. At 15:20 the outside temperature was still +9 C but the best I could get was + 33 C even though the wind had died down as well.
That goes to show how wrong computer models can be when they average solar radiation for a daily time period for all latitudes and over an entire year, the earth`s albedo, cloud cover and convection.

 

[SSDD]

That goes to show how wrong computer models can be when they average solar radiation for a daily time period for all latitudes and over an entire year, the earth`s albedo, cloud cover and convection.

Don't forget, they are the flat earth society literally modelling the earth as a flat disk, not rotating, being bathed by dim twilight 24/7. How could anyone expect to get a result that is anyting like reality when the models are based on pure fantasy?

 

[gslack]

Yeah really pathetic how they do that.. Which is why I treat them the way I do.. Pointless to treat them any better, they always resort to this tactic if they get caught..

 

[SSDD]

Yeah really pathetic how they do that.. Which is why I treat them the way I do.. Pointless to treat them any better, they always resort to this tactic if they get caught..

If they knew half as much as they think they do, they would know how badly they are being humiliated and would flee the board out of pure embarassment.

 

[IanC]

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.

I am somewhat disappointed that you quoted me incompletely, considering you left out a part that dealt with what we are discussing. oh well, manners are not required on message boards.

your quote from the IPCC is quite true. the radiation from the surface is a major factor in warming the atmosphere. the warmed atmosphere is also radiating to shed its energy, in all directions, from all parts of the atmosphere. without replacement radiation from the atmosphere the surface would cool very quickly. I think those energy budgets put the averages at about 400w up, 330w down, for a net outflow of 70w. if the surface lost 400w without compensating back radiation the temperature would quickly drop, with an accompanying decrease in radiation until a new equilibrium was achieved, much colder than now. the sun would still be adding the same amount of energy but the without the moderating influence of heat sinks and their back radiation, the equilibrium temperature would be different, and more extreme between night and day.

 

[IanC]

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.

science clearly knows the physical laws that govern falling bodies. science also clearly knows how objects emit radiation. only SSDD knows of some strange new law that forbids radiation at certain times and in certain directions, with no underlying physical processes to describe how it is done. good luck with that.

 

[gslack]

Yeah really pathetic how they do that.. Which is why I treat them the way I do.. Pointless to treat them any better, they always resort to this tactic if they get caught..

If they knew half as much as they think they do, they would know how badly they are being humiliated and would flee the board out of pure embarassment.

They won't flee, they are too wrapped up into their online lives.. For them this is life. Thats why they react so strongly when they are caught in error. I am wrong from time to time, I say oops and apologize and go on,no biggie. It's how life works, no ones perfect, and I have learned this lesson by interacting in society. They on the other hand do not interact any place but online. So no life lessons are learned because the online life can be altered to suit the needs on the fly. It gives them a false impression of how life works.

Online they can be as infallible as their google reflexes will allow. So they are nearly infallible most of the time. The topic makes no matter they can google up enough info to appear the master of it.

Of course they don't ACTUALLY understand most of it, and it will usually be out of context or inaccurately used in wrong places and times, but they can't be bothered by truth, it's irrelevant to them here. Online, truth is a relative term to them.

Like Ian's on again off again higher intellect.. Ever wonder how someone half as educated as he tries to imply here, can pull obscure quantum theory quotes out of his butt all day, but can't even understand a simple written logic question? Simple he is a googler not an engineer...

Mammoths navy career and higher education, yet he doesn't know all the little things a navy man would never forget. An officer no less who doesn't even know the terms and vernacular of any ex-navy... Again, a googler not an offcier..

Saigons claim of a reporter in Finland.. ROFL where to start.... Seriously must have been bored that day... He came and argued that the US west coast was the entire pacific ocean..Why? Because mammooth screwed up and made another false absolute claim and stuck his foot in his mouth.. So he had to try and fix it... he's not real, a real person would have avoided the obvious screw up. But not the sock he had to save himself...

None of them are worth the effort to attempt legitimate discussion with. I find it best to scorn them right off. Saves energy..

 

[gslack]

I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...

Sorry Ian you were right.. Obviously the new IanC Infinity Oven above proves it...

 

[SSDD]

science clearly knows the physical laws that govern falling bodies. science also clearly knows how objects emit radiation. only SSDD knows of some strange new law that forbids radiation at certain times and in certain directions, with no underlying physical processes to describe how it is done. good luck with that.

Why be dishonest when it isn't necessary. Science may clearly know the laws that govern falling bodies, but science can't describe the mechanism. Science also knows the laws that govern radiation and the second law states clearly, precisely, and unambiguiously that backradiation does not happen. If science believes that backradiation happens, then explain why the law is written in absoulte terms.

You believe in a myth that you can't observe, can't measure, and can't even begin to prove. Where does that put you Ian?

 

[SSDD]

I am somewhat disappointed that you quoted me incompletely, considering you left out a part that dealt with what we are discussing. oh well, manners are not required on message boards.

How much different from you twisting my statements into something that they weren't? . At least I didn't alter your words.

I think those energy budgets put the averages at about 400w up, 330w down, for a net outflow of 70w. if the surface lost 400w without compensating back radiation the temperature would quickly drop, with an accompanying decrease in radiation until a new equilibrium was achieved, much colder than now. the sun would still be adding the same amount of energy but the without the moderating influence of heat sinks and their back radiation, the equilibrium temperature would be different, and more extreme between night and day.

We both know that those budgets are bullshit..at least we both should know it starting with that bogus number of 400. You are aware of the actual number for incoming radiation aren't you? And we both should know that those budgets assume that all radiation absorbed by the earth is instantly emitted...none whatsoever stored in the oceans...rocks...soil...concrete...etc. Your budgets are based on fantasy and their output is fantasy.

Without a greenhouse effect, the temperatures would be exactly what they are at present since there is no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct that the idiots who made up that energy budget needed to get it to balance and nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...

Sorry Ian you were right.. Obviously the new IanC Infinity Oven above proves it...

Amazing, isn't it. When faced with the end result of thier crazy hypothesis if it were true, they still hang on.

 

[gslack]

I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...

Sorry Ian you were right.. Obviously the new IanC Infinity Oven above proves it...

Amazing, isn't it. When faced with the end result of thier crazy hypothesis if it were true, they still hang on.

As I said before, it's a religion now. Relies on more faith than Catholicism...All hail the goreacle!

 

[IanC]

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.

gravity acts as if it was a curvature of space caused by concentrations of matter. it acts on all matter and all energy in the universe at all times. we may not understand understand it totally but we can descriibe its affects and predict its future effects with amazing precision.

where is the analogous theory that describes how certain types of radiation are forbidden, depending on local conditions? what is the referee that decides?

physics says that all matter radiates if it is above zero degrees Kelvin. it does not say 'depending on the temperature of its surroundings'. the temperature of an object depends on how much energy it already has, and changes according to how much new energy it receives while trying to shed its existing energy.

the earth's surface would lose energy and heat very quickly if it was directly exposed to space because it would be getting approx zero energy back. instead the surface is radiating into an atmosphere at a similar temperature and thus gets a large fraction of it output returned. if the earth's surface somehow became as cold as space then the atmosphere would quickly lose it heat and energy because it would be radiating away energy but not getting any energy back to replace it.

you say there have been no experimental data but I say there has been hundreds of years of experimental data. we know that elements and compounds emit and absorb exactly the same wavelengths. we know that transfer of energy is proportional to (T1-T2)^4th power. (in Kelvins, of course). if you knew anything about the history of thermodynamics you would also know that quantum theory basically came into existence because of the ultraviolet catastrophe that was solved by Planck adding a granularity factor, that you could not just keep dividing things in to smaller pieces. remember, the thermodynamic laws were constructed before we even knew what an atom looked like! you are quoting people who had no idea of the structure of an atom, or the workings of photons, as experts in microscopic interactions.

I could go on but I am just wasting my breathe.

 

[IanC]

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.

I would like to point out that the filaments are very thin, and the area available to absorb photons from the opposing filament is probably on the order of 1mm2. radiation is emitted in all directions. the amount of light energy being swapped by the two lamps is much less than 1% of the total, confounded by glass lens and molecules in the air, and other things I havent thought of. do you really think we would be able to detect differences on that scale by ordinary means?

 

[IanC]

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.

many times in the past I have pointed out that Planck curves are an easy graphical description of the SLoT for the area of radiation transfer. net energy goes in one direction but that does not mean that every interaction is in one direction. the cooler object DOES NOT STOP RADIATING! photons, once emitted, do not cease to exist until they interact with another bit of matter. if they are aimed at a warmer object they still complete their journey.

 

[IanC]

That goes to show how wrong computer models can be when they average solar radiation for a daily time period for all latitudes and over an entire year, the earth`s albedo, cloud cover and convection.

Don't forget, they are the flat earth society literally modelling the earth as a flat disk, not rotating, being bathed by dim twilight 24/7. How could anyone expect to get a result that is anyting like reality when the models are based on pure fantasy?

I totally agree that general energy budgets need to be upgraded.

for instance, depending on the temperature of the surface, the fraction of energy directly escaping out of the 'window' can be increased or decreased.

 

[IanC]

I am somewhat disappointed that you quoted me incompletely, considering you left out a part that dealt with what we are discussing. oh well, manners are not required on message boards.

How much different from you twisting my statements into something that they weren't? . At least I didn't alter your words.

I think those energy budgets put the averages at about 400w up, 330w down, for a net outflow of 70w. if the surface lost 400w without compensating back radiation the temperature would quickly drop, with an accompanying decrease in radiation until a new equilibrium was achieved, much colder than now. the sun would still be adding the same amount of energy but the without the moderating influence of heat sinks and their back radiation, the equilibrium temperature would be different, and more extreme between night and day.

We both know that those budgets are bullshit..at least we both should know it starting with that bogus number of 400. You are aware of the actual number for incoming radiation aren't you? And we both should know that those budgets assume that all radiation absorbed by the earth is instantly emitted...none whatsoever stored in the oceans...rocks...soil...concrete...etc. Your budgets are based on fantasy and their output is fantasy.

Without a greenhouse effect, the temperatures would be exactly what they are at present since there is no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct that the idiots who made up that energy budget needed to get it to balance and nothing more.

Is that sarcasm? Rocks don't warm up in the sun?

 

[gslack]

Standard Ian BS.... YAWN!

A lot of high talk and no substance...

 

[mamooth]

Wow, that was stupid. You'd have to be a IQ-80-range moron not to see the flaws in that kind of 'tard logic. And to think, some drooler actually spent a long time putting that together, said to himself "damn, that's good!", and posted it. The mind boggles, the dedication that they put into being a 'tard, and the fact that so many other 'tards fell for it.

Non-tards, of course, instantly see that the radiative heat flow in that situation is completely insignificant compared to the conductive heat flow. The heat will simply conduct away, not radiate back and forth forever.

And even if there was zero conduction, a big portion of the radiative heat would just go out the window, again preventing any buildup.

And even if there was no window, the system would just remain the same temp, not increase.

Now, if you had a magical fairy oven that prevented all conduction and convection heat loss, and which magically reflected 100% of the radiation back to the food ... well, you'd be living in gslack's magical physics fairyland, the only spot in creation where he isn't a raging 'tard.

The "magical vanishing photon" crowd simply has zero common sense. And since they have no common sense, they suck at physics. And as Dunning-Kruger demonstrated, they suck too hard to ever grasp how hard they suck. Stupid people simply don't have the brainpower to understand how stupid they are.

 

[IanC]

I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...

Sorry Ian you were right.. Obviously the new IanC Infinity Oven above proves it...

Amazing, isn't it. When faced with the end result of thier crazy hypothesis if it were true, they still hang on.

I appreciate the humour in that joke. if it was anybody else besides glack I would have repped them.

how effective would a microwave oven be if it didnt have shielding to contain the microwaves? remember the first ones? they had hot and cold spots. how effective would a conventional oven be without the insulation? you could still grill or broil but you couldnt bake.



how much radiation is coming off the cooking food? what is the ratio of inside oven surface to food surface?

you guys never seem to bring up interesting aspects or ask illuminating questions.

for instance. the surface is solid or liquid therefore the radiating particles are much closer together and the density of radiation would seem to be greater than the atmosphere with its separated particles. things that make you go "hmmmmm". at least initially


edit- oops, my mistake. I thought it was a microwave. my phone doesnt have a very big screen.