Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[Crick]

What part of an engineering faculty were you?

You seem to have missed my message re radiative heat transfer: that it was simpler than that of solid and liquids and needed less time to explain. Your claim that it is more complex than the rest of thermo is what doesn't fly, catfish.

Oh but it IS far more complex than understanding conduction or convection.. Every transfer problem is a 3D geometry exercise.. And setting them up requires a lot of smart assumptions to get close to the correct answer..

Maybe you slept thru those parts..

That makes me think you never took thermo or heat transfer. Which of these two problems do you think harder to calculate:
1) I give you the radiative flux of the sun and the albedo of the Earth. Calculate the rate at which the Earth is absorbing solar energy
2) I have a cylindrical tank made of half inch steel, 5 meters tall and 2 meters in diameter installed in an air conditioned 23C facility. I have an 300 liter water heater rated at 20 kW and set to 60C. Water feeding in to the heater is 20C. We start off with the water heater full of 60C water and then open the taps to the tank and fill it at a rate of 15 liters/minute. When the tank is full, what is its temperature?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.

Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny. The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

 

[Crick]

Your legend in your own mind...

ROFL. I never claimed to have a degree you quite obviously do not possess.

The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

What you have clearly shown is that you have never passed any course in any variety of physics.

 

[IanC]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.

Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny. The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

Billy Bob - why do you say such stupid things? I have never heard anyone say all CO2 emissions head towards Earth. There is only one idiot that says none of them do, and that's SSDD.

Do the skeptical side a favour by not posting such embarrassing comments.

 

[SSDD]

But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.

You said that heat is energy....so now you are saying that some energy can't flow from cool to warm but other energy can? How does the energy know which is which and when it can and when it can't?

 

[SSDD]

[
Yes, the CMB experiment is a perfect example of thermal radiation from a cold object hitting a warmer radio antenna dish. The cosmic background emits thermal radiation not "resonance radio signals". You will have to carefully state how thermal radiation from the cosmos has anything to do with resonance.

Sorry guy, all that CMB business did was highlight the fact that you are yet another person who is fooled by side show claims....receiving a resonance radio frequency is not evidence of back radiation. Already did....unfortunately it apparently was way over your head...

 

[SSDD]

You think that is proof of anything? Generalizations are never a proof. So you don't have any proof do you.

And yet, you apparently believe wholeheartedly in photons, QM, and both the AGW and greenhouse hypotheses with far less evidence than every observation ever made...and the second law didn't get to be a law based on the thin correlation that serves as support for the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2. It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase. Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.

Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny. The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

Billy Bob - why do you say such stupid things? I have never heard anyone say all CO2 emissions head towards Earth. There is only one idiot that says none of them do, and that's SSDD.

Do the skeptical side a favour by not posting such embarrassing comments.

No Ian, What is embarrassing are those who think that LWIR can cause ocean warming. It Can Not. The math does not work in your favor. Crick Simply thinks that it can even though only 30% of re-emitted LWIR (near surface) is towards the planet. As altitude increases that amount dwindles rapidly. Had you read my post you would have understood this.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is nuts.

Yes SSDD, you are nuts. There is a lot of pathology in your posts, but I think you are more of an immature troll who is nuts. Crying for attention. You have no self pride though and are willing to demean yourself just for the futile appearance of trying to seem intelligent.

I'm sure that you believe that...just as I am sure that you believe that crick's heat of compression experiment was actually evidence proving the greenhouse effect, and that receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence that a radio telescope received CMB IR radiation...and I bet you believe that a pyrogeometer at ambient temperature actually measures DLR...if you believe that CO2 in a closed bottle heated by a lamp is evidence of a greenhouse effect, you will probably believe anything.

And the ad hominems are nothing more than badges to me...they are evidence that you can't actually hold your own in a discussion so you do what you can in lieu actually making some valid point.

 

[SSDD]

[

Doesn't answer the question at all chief.. How does radiative heat transfer work? Where does it come from? Where does it go? What is the energy transport mechanism?

I am afraid that both of us know that there really isn't a solid answer for those questions...we now that radiative heat transfers, but the actual mechanism?...we don't know that any more than we know the actual mechanism by which gravity works....That is a problem for you...I am sure that you believe that you actually know the answers to the questions that you asked but the fact is that whatever you believe you "know" or that science "knows" is at this point, just a place holder explanation till such time as we actually know....like light being particle and wave...no proof of that exists and yet,, I am sure that you believe that you know that light is both particle and wave.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick has absolutely no scientific background or even lyrical knowledge, he just reposts AGW Cult nonsense

 

[SSDD]

without caring about it's own temperature??
Think if I tuck it under my arm for an hour and then point it into my freezer -- it will refuse to violate the 2nd Law and have me arrested???

If you think that IR thermometer is measuring radiation from your freezer, then you don't know how it works... If you have one, take a look at the front of it...see that lens? On the other side of that lens is a thermopile...it works on the same principle as Pictet's experiment.. Whatever you are pointing the lens at, whether it be warmer or cooler than the thermopile results in the thermopile changing temperature and from there the speed and direction of the change goes through a mathematical model to determine the temperature of whatever you are pointing it at...point it in your freezer and the thermopile starts cooling down...which results in a temperature reading...radiation from the freezer is not coming out to your thermometer at ambient temperature.

 

[IanC]

But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.

You said that heat is energy....so now you are saying that some energy can't flow from cool to warm but other energy can? How does the energy know which is which and when it can and when it can't?

Pull up the quote where I said energy and heat are equivalent terms. Radiation is a means of transferring energy, composed of individual interactions. Heat is a concept of energy transfer in substances comprised of many, many particles.

Eg. For one coin flip it is 50/50 heads comes up. For one million coins it is nearly impossible to have all heads.

Once you get into the actual transfer of heat in a substance the complexity goes up dramatically. I don't think you are capable of discussing it since you have no understanding of even basic physics.

 

[IanC]

without caring about it's own temperature??
Think if I tuck it under my arm for an hour and then point it into my freezer -- it will refuse to violate the 2nd Law and have me arrested???

If you think that IR thermometer is measuring radiation from your freezer, then you don't know how it works... If you have one, take a look at the front of it...see that lens? On the other side of that lens is a thermopile...it works on the same principle as Pictet's experiment.. Whatever you are pointing the lens at, whether it be warmer or cooler than the thermopile results in the thermopile changing temperature and from there the speed and direction of the change goes through a mathematical model to determine the temperature of whatever you are pointing it at...point it in your freezer and the thermopile starts cooling down...which results in a temperature reading...radiation from the freezer is not coming out to your thermometer at ambient temperature.

Here we go again. Reminiscent of the solar heater/cooler box argument with Polar Bear.

Explain how radiation magically stops when the IR gun is pointed at something the same temperature. I say they both continue to radiate, you say they stop but refuse to give a mechanism to abort the collisions that produce the radiation in the first place.

 

[flacaltenn]

But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.

You said that heat is energy....so now you are saying that some energy can't flow from cool to warm but other energy can? How does the energy know which is which and when it can and when it can't?

That's an easy one dude. You can store "energy" in a spring. It's simply a description of the capacity to do work.

And every form of energy might have different rules for how it's stored and propagated. Only heat energy cares about cool to warm or vice versa because temperature in that case is the "motive force" that PUSHES the energy along..

 

[flacaltenn]

without caring about it's own temperature??
Think if I tuck it under my arm for an hour and then point it into my freezer -- it will refuse to violate the 2nd Law and have me arrested???

If you think that IR thermometer is measuring radiation from your freezer, then you don't know how it works... If you have one, take a look at the front of it...see that lens? On the other side of that lens is a thermopile...it works on the same principle as Pictet's experiment.. Whatever you are pointing the lens at, whether it be warmer or cooler than the thermopile results in the thermopile changing temperature and from there the speed and direction of the change goes through a mathematical model to determine the temperature of whatever you are pointing it at...point it in your freezer and the thermopile starts cooling down...which results in a temperature reading...radiation from the freezer is not coming out to your thermometer at ambient temperature.

OMG --- how close you are.. But how far it is to the truth.. The LENS is there because it's accepting IR radiation in the forrm OF LIGHT. Lenses don't focus "temperatures".. And I haven't held a thermopile in my hands for about 20 years. They are a very complicated way to measure heat and have virtually no sensitivity to objects that aren't very warm.. All of these Home Depot IR thermometer use direct photoelectric conversion. With small and cheap and accurate photodiodes that are tuned to IR. Like the IR sensor in a remote control..

And radiation from your freezer IS coming out -- IS focused by lens -- and IS delivered to the photosensors that then measure an electric current corresponding to the number of IR photons received per unit time..

Go buy one -- take it apart -- and send us a pic of the "thermopile" in it. Even it HAD a thermopile in it -- it's still the incoming IR radiation thru that lens that would "warm" that thermopile..

 

[flacaltenn]

[

Doesn't answer the question at all chief.. How does radiative heat transfer work? Where does it come from? Where does it go? What is the energy transport mechanism?

I am afraid that both of us know that there really isn't a solid answer for those questions...we now that radiative heat transfers, but the actual mechanism?...we don't know that any more than we know the actual mechanism by which gravity works....That is a problem for you...I am sure that you believe that you actually know the answers to the questions that you asked but the fact is that whatever you believe you "know" or that science "knows" is at this point, just a place holder explanation till such time as we actually know....like light being particle and wave...no proof of that exists and yet,, I am sure that you believe that you know that light is both particle and wave.

Do you deny the basic premise that the 3rd method of heat transfer (radiative) exists then? Or are you just too lazy to research WHY it's included in all textbooks on thermo..

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, all that CMB business did was highlight the fact that you are yet another person who is fooled by side show claims....receiving a resonance radio frequency is not evidence of back radiation. Already did....unfortunately it apparently was way over your head..

My gosh SSDD that is one of the stupidest things you think. The CMB emits thermal radiation. Not “resonant radio frequencies”. You are making crap up. Show me a source that says that the CMB is anything but thermal radiation at 2.7 K.

Furthermore, you don't even understand the point. Of course CMB is not back radiation. It's thermal radiation from a distant source. It shows that energy from a cold source can strike a warmer object, the antenna dish!

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, you apparently believe wholeheartedly in photons, QM, and both the AGW and greenhouse hypotheses with far less evidence than every observation ever made...and the second law didn't get to be a law based on the thin correlation that serves as support for the AGW hypothesis.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave..duck and cover. You can't answer the question. You accept thermodynamic models of refrigerator physics! And you can't prove it applies to radiation physics can you. And you try to divert your ignorance by attacking quantum mechanics and photons. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm sure that you believe that that receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence that a radio telescope received CMB IR radiation.

There you go again making up words for radiation thermodynamics. You have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you tell the Nobel prize winners that their experiment was all wrong.

And the ad hominems are nothing more than badges to me...they are evidence that you can't actually hold your own in a discussion so you do what you can in lieu actually making some valid point.

You don't even know what ad hominem means. I wasn't using it to make an argumentative point. I was simply saying you are nuts. That should be labeled as fact, not an argument.