Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[jc456]

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!

You got observed?

Besides all the ones I previously posted that you ignored?

No, post the one that proves yours!

The Handbook of Modern Sensors isn't good enough?
Do you have any that refute this source of SSDD's?

None observed no! Remains no

None observed no!

The authors of The Handbook of Modern Sensors show two way flow and mention "net thermal flux",
but they're wrong and SSDD, with no backup, is right? LOL!

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment. One another can confirm. That's science right? so still no observed verified two way flow. just isn't. you can't post any.

 

[IanC]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

I read the article and have a few comments. The writing is agonizingly verbose and awkward.

Equation 3b) is wrong. The background temperature for the sphere's radiation should not be To. It should be Tsh. Because the shell is the surround to the sphere, not the exterior background To.

Equations 4b) to 5b) cascades that error.

Equations 3 and 4 are identical. What's the point of all that verbiage. Very awkward.

Ironically his equation 3b') is a tautology and says nothing about the sphere or shell equilibrium temperature.

In this sentence the author doesn't understand that the shell is a sort of intermediary and floats to an equilibrium somewhere between Tsh and To.

To raise the sphere’s temperature from emission from the shell would require positive heat flow from the shell to the sphere, but this is never possible because at most the shell emits the same power as the sphere.​

He doesn't understand that the shell isn't raising any temperature, but is shielding heat output from the sphere. The shell will come to a higher temperature equilibrium.

To raise an object’s temperature requires either work performed on it or heat transferred into it.​

That is the same problem the sock puppet skeptics have.

Edit: He assumes an input power to the sphere, Psp. That is a constant and an important part of the system, but it disappears in the rest of his development.

What did you think of the article?

.

To be honest, I don't know where the 5:1 number came from. I expect it is an extrapolation from the diagram used to illustrate the planet within a shell concept. Willis made it clear that the planet was large and the shell was close, therefore the surface areas of each were very close to equal.

Another odd assumption made by Postma is that the radioactive material providing the power source is dispersed within the planet so that all locations are the same temperature. I doubt that this is even possible. What Postma is trying to do is imply that the temperature radiating 235w is the warmest that can be found, therefore the maximum temperature.

There is also the implications of Q, the amount of energy available to heat the cooler of two objects. SSDD and I worked this one over years ago until he couldn't defend his side meaningfully and he simply ŕfused to discuss it anymore. The entropy of two different sets of objects both transferring the same nominal amount of Q can be significant.

Postma and his brethren also denied the 'net' version of SB before. I don't know when he changed over. As you may have noticed, he is calculating the surface temperature using the ambient temperature even thought there is no actual contact with the environment, only the shell.

Sorry, got to go.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!

You got observed?

Besides all the ones I previously posted that you ignored?

No, post the one that proves yours!

The Handbook of Modern Sensors isn't good enough?
Do you have any that refute this source of SSDD's?

None observed no! Remains no

None observed no!

The authors of The Handbook of Modern Sensors show two way flow and mention "net thermal flux",
but they're wrong and SSDD, with no backup, is right? LOL!

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment. One another can confirm. That's science right? so still no observed verified two way flow. just isn't. you can't post any.

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment.

You should definitely contact them and tell them they need to prove that sensors
work the way they claimed.

Be sure to post their response.

 

[Crick]

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment. One another can confirm. That's science right? so still no observed verified two way flow. just isn't. you can't post any.

JC, have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? It's a bit of guidance by a fellow named William of Ockham, way back when, that says - more or less - if you have two explanations for the same observation, the one that requires you make up the least number of new rules is the likeliest to be correct.

Let's set up a simple experiment. We take two identical slaps of iron. We use boiling water to heat one to precisely 100C. We leave the other out in a shaded spot so it is at ambient temperature, say 25C. Now we place them right next to each other with one centimeter separating them and monitor their temperatures over the next hour, writing all those temperatures and times down.

Now we repeat the experiment except while we heat one back up to 100C, we cool the other to 0C with a big pile of ice. When they've both stabilized, we set them next to each other again with one centimeter separation. Again we spend the next hour recording their temperatures.

I think we know what we will find. The second experiment will show the hot block cooling faster and the cold block warming faster. Tell me if you disagree.

Now, in light of the ongoing conversation on this board, we have two possible explanations:

1) Per Planck's Law, both blocks are constantly radiating photons at a frequency and intensity proportional to their absolute temperatures and their temperature trends are simply the results of the net energy flux between them: ie, the radiation going one way minus the radiation going the other way.

2) The hot block is able, by some unknown mechanism to tell the temperature of the cold block and and in a clear violation of Planck's Law, throttle its emissions so that they are NOT proportional to its own absolute temperature but to that of the colder, target block. The cold block is able, by some unknown mechanism, to also measure the temperature of the hotter block and, in clear violation of Planck's Law, completely stop its emissions, in both experiments, because the other block is warmer.

So, one answer says that both blocks are doing the same thing all the time, in accord with a number of fundamental laws of physics and exactly produces the observed temperature changes. The other answer requires that the blocks be able to tell the temperature of a separate object and throttle its radiative emissions in inverse proportion to the temperature of the target AND only in the direction of the target (the other side of the hot block would be radiating normally). Besides violating Planck's Law that say all matter constantly radiates, this solution would have to deal with targets that are far away and moving with respect to the hot block.

Which of these would William of Ockham tell you to accept?

 

[jc456]

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment. One another can confirm. That's science right? so still no observed verified two way flow. just isn't. you can't post any.

JC, have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? It's a bit of guidance by a fellow named William of Ockham, way back when, that says - more or less - if you have two explanations for the same observation, the one that requires you make up the least number of new rules is the likeliest to be correct.

Let's set up a simple experiment. We take two identical slaps of iron. We use boiling water to heat one to precisely 100C. We leave the other out in a shaded spot so it is at ambient temperature, say 25C. Now we place them right next to each other with one centimeter separating them and monitor their temperatures over the next hour, writing all those temperatures and times down.

Now we repeat the experiment except while we heat one back up to 100C, we cool the other to 0C with a big pile of ice. When they've both stabilized, we set them next to each other again with one centimeter separation. Again we spend the next hour recording their temperatures.

I think we know what we will find. The second experiment will show the hot block cooling faster and the cold block warming faster. Tell me if you disagree.

Now, in light of the ongoing conversation on this board, we have two possible explanations:

1) Per Planck's Law, both blocks are constantly radiating photons at a frequency and intensity proportional to their absolute temperatures and their temperature trends are simply the results of the net energy flux between them: ie, the radiation going one way minus the radiation going the other way.

2) The hot block is able, by some unknown mechanism to tell the temperature of the cold block and and in a clear violation of Planck's Law, throttle its emissions so that they are NOT proportional to its own absolute temperature but to that of the colder, target block. The cold block is able, by some unknown mechanism, to also measure the temperature of the hotter block and, in clear violation of Planck's Law, completely stop its emissions, in both experiments, because the other block is warmer.

So, one answer says that both blocks are doing the same thing all the time, in accord with a number of fundamental laws of physics and exactly produces the observed temperature changes. The other answer requires that the blocks be able to tell the temperature of a separate object and throttle its radiative emissions in inverse proportion to the temperature of the target AND only in the direction of the target (the other side of the hot block would be radiating normally). Besides violating Planck's Law that say all matter constantly radiates, this solution would have to deal with targets that are far away and moving with respect to the hot block.

Which of these would William of Ockham tell you to accept?

Technically and scientifically set your benchmark and you first need to know how each item changes temperature as standalone. Then run your tests and compare to the rate of change to the standalone readings. Otherwise your tests prove nothing.

 

[Crick]

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment. One another can confirm. That's science right? so still no observed verified two way flow. just isn't. you can't post any.

JC, have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? It's a bit of guidance by a fellow named William of Ockham, way back when, that says - more or less - if you have two explanations for the same observation, the one that requires you make up the least number of new rules is the likeliest to be correct.

Let's set up a simple experiment. We take two identical slaps of iron. We use boiling water to heat one to precisely 100C. We leave the other out in a shaded spot so it is at ambient temperature, say 25C. Now we place them right next to each other with one centimeter separating them and monitor their temperatures over the next hour, writing all those temperatures and times down.

Now we repeat the experiment except while we heat one back up to 100C, we cool the other to 0C with a big pile of ice. When they've both stabilized, we set them next to each other again with one centimeter separation. Again we spend the next hour recording their temperatures.

I think we know what we will find. The second experiment will show the hot block cooling faster and the cold block warming faster. Tell me if you disagree.

Now, in light of the ongoing conversation on this board, we have two possible explanations:

1) Per Planck's Law, both blocks are constantly radiating photons at a frequency and intensity proportional to their absolute temperatures and their temperature trends are simply the results of the net energy flux between them: ie, the radiation going one way minus the radiation going the other way.

2) The hot block is able, by some unknown mechanism to tell the temperature of the cold block and and in a clear violation of Planck's Law, throttle its emissions so that they are NOT proportional to its own absolute temperature but to that of the colder, target block. The cold block is able, by some unknown mechanism, to also measure the temperature of the hotter block and, in clear violation of Planck's Law, completely stop its emissions, in both experiments, because the other block is warmer.

So, one answer says that both blocks are doing the same thing all the time, in accord with a number of fundamental laws of physics and exactly produces the observed temperature changes. The other answer requires that the blocks be able to tell the temperature of a separate object and throttle its radiative emissions in inverse proportion to the temperature of the target AND only in the direction of the target (the other side of the hot block would be radiating normally). Besides violating Planck's Law that say all matter constantly radiates, this solution would have to deal with targets that are far away and moving with respect to the hot block.

Which of these would William of Ockham tell you to accept?

Technically and scientifically set your benchmark

I know what all those words mean but given the way you have arranged them, I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to communicate. However, the purpose of this was not to conduct a quantitative experiment. This was simply a thought experiment whose purpose was to demonstrate an application of Ockham's Razor on the contention that cold won't radiate towards warm.

and you first need to know how each item changes temperature as standalone.

You mean how each changes sitting by itself in the ambient conditions under which the experiment is run, yes?

Why?

If each run of the experiment is done under the same ambient conditions and the only thing that changes is the temperature of the colder block, why can't the temperature's rates of change in the two experiments be compared? What use will you make of the cooling rates measured on solo blocks under ambient temperature?

Then run your tests and compare to the rate of change to the standalone readings.

Why? I have no interest in the change vs standalone. I am interested in the change caused by altering the temperature difference between the two blocks. I opted to simplify things by only changing the temperature of one of them.

Otherwise your tests prove nothing.

I'm sorry JC but that is just not true. So, I ask you again. We find that the rates of change of the block's temperatures are dependent on the temperature difference between the two and we have two different explanations for why that might be: SSDD's and everyone else's. Which of those two would Ockham say is more likely to be true.

 

[jc456]

good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment. One another can confirm. That's science right? so still no observed verified two way flow. just isn't. you can't post any.

JC, have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? It's a bit of guidance by a fellow named William of Ockham, way back when, that says - more or less - if you have two explanations for the same observation, the one that requires you make up the least number of new rules is the likeliest to be correct.

Let's set up a simple experiment. We take two identical slaps of iron. We use boiling water to heat one to precisely 100C. We leave the other out in a shaded spot so it is at ambient temperature, say 25C. Now we place them right next to each other with one centimeter separating them and monitor their temperatures over the next hour, writing all those temperatures and times down.

Now we repeat the experiment except while we heat one back up to 100C, we cool the other to 0C with a big pile of ice. When they've both stabilized, we set them next to each other again with one centimeter separation. Again we spend the next hour recording their temperatures.

I think we know what we will find. The second experiment will show the hot block cooling faster and the cold block warming faster. Tell me if you disagree.

Now, in light of the ongoing conversation on this board, we have two possible explanations:

1) Per Planck's Law, both blocks are constantly radiating photons at a frequency and intensity proportional to their absolute temperatures and their temperature trends are simply the results of the net energy flux between them: ie, the radiation going one way minus the radiation going the other way.

2) The hot block is able, by some unknown mechanism to tell the temperature of the cold block and and in a clear violation of Planck's Law, throttle its emissions so that they are NOT proportional to its own absolute temperature but to that of the colder, target block. The cold block is able, by some unknown mechanism, to also measure the temperature of the hotter block and, in clear violation of Planck's Law, completely stop its emissions, in both experiments, because the other block is warmer.

So, one answer says that both blocks are doing the same thing all the time, in accord with a number of fundamental laws of physics and exactly produces the observed temperature changes. The other answer requires that the blocks be able to tell the temperature of a separate object and throttle its radiative emissions in inverse proportion to the temperature of the target AND only in the direction of the target (the other side of the hot block would be radiating normally). Besides violating Planck's Law that say all matter constantly radiates, this solution would have to deal with targets that are far away and moving with respect to the hot block.

Which of these would William of Ockham tell you to accept?

Technically and scientifically set your benchmark

I know what all those words mean but given the way you have arranged them, I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to communicate. However, the purpose of this was not to conduct a quantitative experiment. This was simply a thought experiment whose purpose was to demonstrate an application of Ockham's Razor on the contention that cold won't radiate towards warm.

and you first need to know how each item changes temperature as standalone.

You mean how each changes sitting by itself in the ambient conditions under which the experiment is run, yes?

Why?

If each run of the experiment is done under the same ambient conditions and the only thing that changes is the temperature of the colder block, why can't the temperature's rates of change in the two experiments be compared? What use will you make of the cooling rates measured on solo blocks under ambient temperature?

Then run your tests and compare to the rate of change to the standalone readings.

Why? I have no interest in the change vs standalone. I am interested in the change caused by altering the temperature difference between the two blocks. I opted to simplify things by only changing the temperature of one of them.

Otherwise your tests prove nothing.

I'm sorry JC but that is just not true. So, I ask you again. We find that the rates of change of the block's temperatures are dependent on the temperature difference between the two and we have two different explanations for why that might be: SSDD's and everyone else's. Which of those two would Ockham say is more likely to be true.

I don’t do thought experiments not well thought out.

I already know something cold in a warm room will get warm down to the room temperature. I also know something hot will cool off to room temperature. Put the two together, hot next to cold, nothing changes. The warm object will cool and the cold object will warm. Now, what else do you think will happen?

Oh, with the hot object nect to the cold object, the cold object will warm faster. The warm object will cool at the same rate as it had alone.

 

[Crick]

I could take another interpretation but I won't. If you want anyone to deal with you in an objective manner, you need to bring a little more effort to the table. Presently, you are accepting the word of someone you ought to reject. I am trying to show you why. Use your OWN reasoning on the facts being presented to you and stop picking sides based on personalities. SSDD is not your friend.

 

[jc456]

I could take another interpretation but I won't. If you want anyone to deal with you in an objective manner, you need to bring a little more effort to the table. Presently, you are accepting the word of someone you ought to reject. I am trying to show you why. Use your OWN reasoning on the facts being presented to you and stop picking sides based on personalities. SSDD is not your friend.

Who you talking to?

 

[Crick]

You.

 

[SSDD]

The instant they use the term "net", they ARE saying that it moves in both directions.

The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about net...any mention of net is an opinion not supported by anything like observation or measurement in the real world.

 

[SSDD]

I think you missed the point. SSDD's own reference source refutes his claim.

Only the twisted version that resides in your stupid little brain..

 

[Crick]

I could take another interpretation but I won't. If you want anyone to deal with you in an objective manner, you need to bring a little more effort to the table. Presently, you are accepting the word of someone you ought to reject. I am trying to show you why. Use your OWN reasoning on the facts being presented to you and stop picking sides based on personalities. SSDD is not your friend.

So, JC, any comment? I'm not asking you which explanation YOU believe to be correct, I am only asking you which do you think William of Ockham would believe most likely to be correct.

 

[Wuwei]

The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about net...any mention of net is an opinion not supported by anything like observation or measurement in the real world.

Why do you bring up your opinions that defy all science observations and measurements when you think it's so tedious. We have given you many examples where EM energy from cold sources can hit any objects. Your objections to those observations lead you to self contradiction and a tedious repetition of falsehood.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter. Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.

 

[justoffal]

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter. Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.

Gonna need Daddy Putin's pipe line!
Maybe they should stop pissing him off.

Jo

 

[Billy_Bob]

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter. Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.

Gonna need Daddy Putin's pipe line!
Maybe they should stop pissing him off.

Jo

The weather patter change is global... And just as I predicted in the first few posts of this thread, as the mid latitudes cooled, once thermal equilibrium was almost reached, the polar jets would pull back and the cooling would set in in earnest.

Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists

Its begun and its in both hemispheres..

 

[justoffal]

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter. Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.

Gonna need Daddy Putin's pipe line!
Maybe they should stop pissing him off.

Jo

The weather patter change is global... And just as I predicted in the first few posts of this thread, as the mid latitudes cooled, once thermal equilibrium was almost reached, the polar jets would pull back and the cooling would set in in earnest.

Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists

Its begun and its in both hemispheres..

That makes perfect sense when you consider the Dynamics of heat transfer.
The motion of the fluid is always directly related to the total temperature differential.
The temperature differential becomes the driver and in effect when you remove or decrease the differential motion slows down considerably or even stops.

If this is the case then it follows that within the next decade or so we should see a rapid increase of polar ice both North and South.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter. Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.

Gonna need Daddy Putin's pipe line!
Maybe they should stop pissing him off.

Jo

The weather patter change is global... And just as I predicted in the first few posts of this thread, as the mid latitudes cooled, once thermal equilibrium was almost reached, the polar jets would pull back and the cooling would set in in earnest.

Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists

Its begun and its in both hemispheres..

That makes perfect sense when you consider the Dynamics of heat transfer.
The motion of the fluid is always directly related to the total temperature differential.
The temperature differential becomes the driver and in effect when you remove or decrease the differential motion slows down considerably or even stops.

If this is the case then it follows that within the next decade or so we should see a rapid increase of polar ice both North and South.

Correct...

And this basic physics concept is lost on every alarmist I know. This also means there will be some eddies (small areas of high pressure) that will remain and cause higher than normal temps in small regions. Exactly what we see today in Paris and other small regions of Europe. As I was watching the news today I noticed they were pin pointing these small regions as the "Hottest the earth has ever seen" and I just shook my head that they would lie like this knowing the MEWP and the RWP were both significantly warmer. They are truly desperate to get control of people.

 

[SSDD]

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter. Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.

Gonna need Daddy Putin's pipe line!
Maybe they should stop pissing him off.

Jo

The weather patter change is global... And just as I predicted in the first few posts of this thread, as the mid latitudes cooled, once thermal equilibrium was almost reached, the polar jets would pull back and the cooling would set in in earnest.

Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists

Its begun and its in both hemispheres..

That makes perfect sense when you consider the Dynamics of heat transfer.
The motion of the fluid is always directly related to the total temperature differential.
The temperature differential becomes the driver and in effect when you remove or decrease the differential motion slows down considerably or even stops.

If this is the case then it follows that within the next decade or so we should see a rapid increase of polar ice both North and South.

Correct...

And this basic physics concept is lost on every alarmist I know. This also means there will be some eddies (small areas of high pressure) that will remain and cause higher than normal temps in small regions. Exactly what we see today in Paris and other small regions of Europe. As I was watching the news today I noticed they were pin pointing these small regions as the "Hottest the earth has ever seen" and I just shook my head that they would lie like this knowing the MEWP and the RWP were both significantly warmer. They are truly desperate to get control of people.

Turns out that the hottest day eval measured in paris came from a thermometer next to a concrete drain and a steel fence next to an asphalt highway......they really know how to place those stations to get the most pristine temperatures...the surface record is so completely screwed up as to be completely worthless..the only value it has is to support the alarmist narrative. The only temperature gathering network on earth in which every station is properly placed shows no warming and it hasn't for more than a decade.