Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Olde Europe]

Some people think you can raise the temperature of a small object to hotter than the Sun by concentrating sunlight via some mixture of mirrors or magnifying glasses. This is wrong. Right next to the Sun's surface is the strongest intensity possible, therefore the hottest temperature. The Sun's radiation at its surface is also diffuse, therefore no magnification is possible. Mirrors go in both directions therefore as the smaller object approaches the Sun's temperature it is radiating almost as much as it is receiving.

Hopefully that clears that topic out.

Point taken.

What do you make of this?

The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.

 

[jc456]

See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.

When you said the Sun was radiating 239.7W/m2, you were wrong. Got it. Moron.

Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....turns out that you are every bit the moron I thought you were...

Radiation that reaches the surface is different than that radiated by the Sun, as you first claimed. Got it. Moron.

You really think being that stupid and dishonest is cute?...geez you get stupider all the time...

Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....

So why do you claim the radiator was -18C?

You know, you said two radiators at -18C can't warm something above -18C.
Which two radiators did you mean?

Simple....I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying...no one else was as far behind the curve as you...my apologies...I gave your intelligence more credit than it deserved...

I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying

You said two radiators were radiating at -18C.
What two radiators did you mean?
Spell it out, for the rest of the class.......

...no one else was as far behind the curve as you..

I've been pointing out your errors, so you're further behind.
JC has less of a clue than you, so he's even further behind.

good thing I can follow a thread discussion unlike you! so you sir fall farthest from the clue!

I see you are still posting from your rat hole.

 

[jc456]

they're radiating right?

Is that all they're doing?

they're radiating correct? which direction are they radiating? are they cooler than the object? do they radiate at the object.

they're radiating correct?

They are radiating. What else are they doing to shed heat?

tell me

The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

 

[jc456]

See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.

When you said the Sun was radiating 239.7W/m2, you were wrong. Got it. Moron.

Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....turns out that you are every bit the moron I thought you were...

Radiation that reaches the surface is different than that radiated by the Sun, as you first claimed. Got it. Moron.

You really think being that stupid and dishonest is cute?...geez you get stupider all the time...

Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....

So why do you claim the radiator was -18C?

You know, you said two radiators at -18C can't warm something above -18C.
Which two radiators did you mean?

Simple....I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying...no one else was as far behind the curve as you...my apologies...I gave your intelligence more credit than it deserved...

I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying

You said two radiators were radiating at -18C.
What two radiators did you mean?
Spell it out, for the rest of the class.......

...no one else was as far behind the curve as you..

I've been pointing out your errors, so you're further behind.
JC has less of a clue than you, so he's even further behind.

actually SSDD stated the universities showed two radiators in their drawing. I see you continue to misrepresent that. How unusual from a guy like you?

 

[IanC]

Some people think you can raise the temperature of a small object to hotter than the Sun by concentrating sunlight via some mixture of mirrors or magnifying glasses. This is wrong. Right next to the Sun's surface is the strongest intensity possible, therefore the hottest temperature. The Sun's radiation at its surface is also diffuse, therefore no magnification is possible. Mirrors go in both directions therefore as the smaller object approaches the Sun's temperature it is radiating almost as much as it is receiving.

Hopefully that clears that topic out.

Point taken.

What do you make of this?

The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.

Are you questioning the perfect insulation, or the line of sight?

It is an obviously nonrealistic scenario with two objects tethered with a single vector. Radiation can only be passed back and forth along that vector, hence it will come to equilibrium at the same temperature.

 

[Olde Europe]

Are you questioning the perfect insulation, or the line of sight?

It is an obviously nonrealistic scenario with two objects tethered with a single vector. Radiation can only be passed back and forth along that vector, hence it will come to equilibrium at the same temperature.

I am questioning the whole argument.

At the distance of the earth, radiative flux would be 1370W/m². That equal radiation out would not match the temperature of the sun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that all they're doing?

they're radiating correct? which direction are they radiating? are they cooler than the object? do they radiate at the object.

they're radiating correct?

They are radiating. What else are they doing to shed heat?

tell me

The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

 

[jc456]

they're radiating correct? which direction are they radiating? are they cooler than the object? do they radiate at the object.

they're radiating correct?

They are radiating. What else are they doing to shed heat?

tell me

The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.

When you said the Sun was radiating 239.7W/m2, you were wrong. Got it. Moron.

Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....turns out that you are every bit the moron I thought you were...

Radiation that reaches the surface is different than that radiated by the Sun, as you first claimed. Got it. Moron.

You really think being that stupid and dishonest is cute?...geez you get stupider all the time...

Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....

So why do you claim the radiator was -18C?

You know, you said two radiators at -18C can't warm something above -18C.
Which two radiators did you mean?

Simple....I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying...no one else was as far behind the curve as you...my apologies...I gave your intelligence more credit than it deserved...

I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying

You said two radiators were radiating at -18C.
What two radiators did you mean?
Spell it out, for the rest of the class.......

...no one else was as far behind the curve as you..

I've been pointing out your errors, so you're further behind.
JC has less of a clue than you, so he's even further behind.

actually SSDD stated the universities showed two radiators in their drawing. I see you continue to misrepresent that. How unusual from a guy like you?

actually SSDD stated the universities showed two radiators in their drawing

He said the 2 sources of downward radiation were both at -18C.
The university didn't say that.
He also said 2 radiators at -18C can't heat the Earth any warmer than -18C.
The University didn't say that.

FYI, there are 3 radiators in the drawing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

they're radiating correct?

They are radiating. What else are they doing to shed heat?

tell me

The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

 

[jc456]

tell me

The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?

 

[IanC]

Are you questioning the perfect insulation, or the line of sight?

It is an obviously nonrealistic scenario with two objects tethered with a single vector. Radiation can only be passed back and forth along that vector, hence it will come to equilibrium at the same temperature.

I am questioning the whole argument.

At the distance of the earth, radiative flux would be 1370W/m². That equal radiation out would not match the temperature of the sun.

the theoretical maximum temperature of any object being warmed by the Sun is the temperature of the Sun. it will obviously be lower because of losses in the system. people here have complained that the surface cannot be radiating at a temperature higher than the incoming solar insulation. I say it can, because of conditions that retain energy within the earth system. reality supports this. the energy to do this comes from the energy not lost immediately to space. the surface does receive more incoming radiation from the atmosphere than the sun but the original source of that energy is the sun.

 

[jc456]

but that wasn't my question to you sherlock. It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question. Not an open ended one. Is it?

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?

so, if the atmosphere acts as a heat sink, it cools the earth surface, not warm it.

 

[polarbear]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was is it radiating?

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?

so, if the atmosphere acts as a heat sink, it cools the earth surface, not warm it.

You aren't going to confuse a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction with our atmosphere, are you?
You know that the metal fins on your heat sink send photons in all directions, even back toward the hot object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.

Lessen the heat loss by causing the warmer body to "dial down radiation emitted"?

 

[jc456]

ok, I missed it then. thanks. BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink? To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?

so, if the atmosphere acts as a heat sink, it cools the earth surface, not warm it.

You aren't going to confuse a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction with our atmosphere, are you?
You know that the metal fins on your heat sink send photons in all directions, even back toward the hot object.

so are you saying the surface and the atmosphere don't touch?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

Warmer than what?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?

To remove heat.

To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?

so, if the atmosphere acts as a heat sink, it cools the earth surface, not warm it.

You aren't going to confuse a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction with our atmosphere, are you?
You know that the metal fins on your heat sink send photons in all directions, even back toward the hot object.

so are you saying the surface and the atmosphere don't touch?

No.
Are you saying the fins don't radiate back to the source?

 

[jc456]

so, finally getting somewhere, thank you. Ok, so you asked warmer than what. who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to. The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.

The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?

so, if the atmosphere acts as a heat sink, it cools the earth surface, not warm it.

You aren't going to confuse a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction with our atmosphere, are you?
You know that the metal fins on your heat sink send photons in all directions, even back toward the hot object.

so are you saying the surface and the atmosphere don't touch?

No.
Are you saying the fins don't radiate back to the source?

sort of goes against the objective of cooling the object.