What is a Watt???
11-12-2011, 01:30 AM
RE: What is a Watt???
It is with what I can only describe as extreme annonance that "elsewhere" I am seeing another group discuss EXACTLY what I am describing on this thread, but in another "style".
No credit or reference has been given to me in those discussions.......
So, I will continue here ONLY. I will not contribute to the group discussions I mention, that started after I posted on this thread, AND sent a link to this thread to that group...
Incidentally, that is not the first time that has happened to me or to what I have also suggested, and on several occasions now, previously within that group.
Anyway, I will continue.
It is often said that space is cold, but is it??? AND, what has that got to do with this thread?
Well, let us see if our "new" understanding of what a W/m2 for a black and a gray body means can help answer that question.
If we remember for a black body, because of the 1, and instant assumptions, then a W/m2 can substitute / describe an energy flow for a black body,
but, for a gray body because it is not instantaneous, nor 100% efficient, then a W/m2 in reality (ie, for gray bodies) can only describe the power of that flow. Amount is missing.
It is commonly stated that the earth recieves 1378 W/m2 from the sun at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).
This is an average, it is not a constant. Firstly the sun is variable (sunspots...) AND,
the earth's orbit around the sun IS elipitical. So, the distance and therefore the power of sunlight recieved is constantly varying because of the inverse square law.
If I remember correctly when I did the beach balll / pea simile, then the pea (earth) moves backward and forward from the goal line 1.4 meters during it's annual orbit of the sun.
That will alter the W/m2 received at the TOA.
So, given all Greenhouse Effect "theory" (failed hypothesis actually) and Anthropogenic Global Warming "explanations" are based upon in = out or else BOOOM, then,
using a "constant" (divided by 4...) that is NOT a "constant", IT IS AN AVERAGE, is, well, a bit of a problem for the above mentioned failed hypothesises....
All that said, there is a bigger issue, BECAUSE OF THE INCORRECT USE OF W/m2, that is relevant to this thread.
The sun is a gray body at a certain temperature (which varies no doubt - but it is damned hot...) so, after emissivity is taken into account, it will emit thermal IR at a certain power.
This will be THE POWER of solar emission, but it will not include amount, because of the use of W/m2 to describe a gray body emission.
At TOA it appears that, "on average" earth receives what it should do according to the inverse square law (ie, reduces with increasing circumference of circle of emissions from source).
BUT, this is only THE POWER of what is received at TOA, amount (at that power) is NOT DESCRIBED.
Some have argued that because earth (apparently) recieves what it should from the sun according to the inverse square law,
then this shows that nothing was lost inbetween the sun and earth.
This is taken to mean that the sun's emissions effected nothing inbetween (ie, nothing was lost from the beam), so, space IS temperature neutral.
That space has no temperature, because how can nothing have a temperature, is perfectly reasonable to myself.
Things can get very, very cold in space as they cool unhindered in nothing,
but that does not mean space is cold.
In fact, it points to, that space IS temperature neutral.
Unfortunately as amount is missing in a W/m2 for a gray body, then, just because the expected POWER of emissions is received at TOA,
that DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN that the right AMOUNT, at the right POWER is received.
The power received is not of itself proof that nothing was lost or used between the sun and earth,
a W/m2 "on average" measurement, is only, and at best, an indication that that maybe the case.
IF we also measured amount, then we might have something nearer an appropriate answer to the question is space cold.
Yet again the above is an example of "us" applying black body willy nilly without realising it,
and jumping to possibly far more that what it actually tells "us", or simply incorrect conclusions.
The basis for any conclusions from such figures is certainly "questionable" for gray bodies....
In the end, to the best of my understanding, space IS temperature neutral, because, how can nothing have a temperature???
But, the W/m2 received at TOA is NOT PROOF that space is either cold or temperature neutral, as some have suggested, because,
the amount emitted (by the sun) and received (by earth at TOA) is missing in W/m2 measurments / figures for a gray body.
We simply do not know, nor can answer the question this way, because we do not measure amount.
This is due to the fact that a W/m2 for a gray body, IS A POWER FIGURE ONLY.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken.
The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: What is a Watt??? - Derek - 11-12-2011 01:30 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)