Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Derek - Smelling the coffee.
#81
Okay, here is my report.

I obtained an empty 2 litre plastic bottle that previously held soda water. I lopped off top and bottom and cut the tube to make a flat(ish) piece of plastic. By the way, I miked it at 0.3mm thick (or is that thin?)

The stove is now nice and warm, very evident to the palm of my hand held about a foot away from the side of the stove. I then introduced the above piece of plastic between my hand and the stove.

The heat on my hand stopped instantly. Remove the plastic and the heat returned. It didn't stop some of the heat, it stopped all of it. Most strange feeling, that sudden loss of heat. Try it yourself.

Any so called experiments involving plastic bottles do not get my support.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#82
From HERE

Quote:co2isnotevil:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:51 am
The biggest effect incremental CO2 has is to decrease the height in the atmosphere where most of the energy that can be absorbed is absorbed. Atmospheric absorption simulations show that the effect is not completely saturated, for example, doubling CO2 from 280 to 560ppm increases the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere by about 3.6 W/m^2. If it was saturated, this would be zero, however; since the first 280ppm contributes over 55 W/m^2 of absorption, there are clear effects of diminishing returns.

Interestingly enough, most warmists claim to understand this physics even as they frequently fail to understand it’s consequences.

We can do a little sanity check on the graph. If CO2 causes the atmosphere to absorb 55 W/m^2 of additional energy and half of that absorbed energy is sent to the surface while the other goes into space, the Earth surface sees an extra 28 W/m^2 from CO2 absorption. At 288K, the surface energy is 390.1 W/m^2. Adding 28 W/m^2 to this and converting back to temperature gives 293K, for a total warming from CO2 of 5C, which is close to the integration of effects across concentration.

If the IPCC sensitivity of 0.8 was applied to the 55 W/m^2 of absorption (the IPCC assumes all absorbed energy contributes to warming), then the warming due to CO2 alone would be 44C. Add to this the 100 W/m^2 from water vapor absorption and the total temperature increase due to GHG would be 124C, which is clearly not the case.

If we consider all of the surface warming above 255K to be related to GHG, the total temperature increase is 288-255 = 33C, which when compared to 124C represents about a 300% power difference.

Here is some more sanity checking. 255K represents 239.7 W/m^2 of surface power. There’s about 180 W/m^2 of total GHG absorption, of which about 90 W/m^2 is directed back to the surface (at least under cloudless skies). Under clouds, we can consider that 100% of the energy is absorbed by the system, half by the surface and half by the clouds, which ultimately finds it’s way back to the surface. Considering 66% average cloud coverage, we can calculate the surface energy as follows:

239.7 + (1-0.66)*90 + 0.66*180 = 386.2 W/m^2

When converted into a temperature with SB, the result is 287.3K, which is close to the expected value of 288K.

We can also calculate the sensitivity as about 33C per 180 W/m^2, or about 0.18 and not the 0.8 assumed by the IPCC! Note that this is the average sensitivity and because of the diminishing returns, the present day absolute sensitivity will be lower that 0.18, but in any event, 0,18 established a robust upper bound.

George

Additional comments beyond this one worth reading.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#83
(02-18-2010, 02:01 PM)Richard111 Wrote: Any so called experiments involving plastic bottles do not get my support.

Just incase you missed my earlier post Richard111, may I repeat the below.

Container to use -
1) If the plastic has absorbed a lot of the IR and then heated the atmosphere within by conduction and lower frquency radiation, then this is not such a bad thing anyway, is it. ?
Maybe it would be better if the fire side of the bottle was painted with a paint of the same albedo as earths. Presumably a dark blue / grey.
Then the inside of the painted section of the bottle would radiate / conduct in a similar manner as earth to the bottles atmosphere.

2) Would a better approach be to use a container made of a front and back that was transparent to the fires IR, ie rock salt plate, and
have sides and a top and bottom made of a material transparent to IR frequecies between 10 to 40 degrees celcius.
This would let the firs IR through the box and only heat the atmosphere as it does directly.
The heat being lost by conduction and (lower0 frequency radiation by the atmospher would be through the sides, top, and bottom.
The thermometre would be best located on one of the sides.

Personally on the above basis I think the first container idea is the better,
as it is nearer the earths surface conduction and radiation and how the (limited) atmosphere dissipates the heat
that the experiment tries to show which constituents effect it, which way, and how much.

The second suggestion may well not be as easily or cheaply done, but is probably a better earths atmosphere similie
BTW -
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/...ng-skeptic

[Image: Greenhouse_Gas_Absorption-dlh.png]

Please note O2 +plus Ozone (O3) = (20%[ish] of the atmosphere) spike, and
nitrogen = (79%[ish] of the atmosphere) is omitted from the plot. ?

N2O is nitrous oxide, not (N2) nitrogen...
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.
Reply
#84
Derek, I feel your explanation might be a tad over involved for for people in my social circle here. Rather than try to convince people I attempt to sow a seed of doubt that the line they are being sold by the government may not be all it is claimed.

That small sheet of plastic mentioned above; I made a small wooden frame (aka picture frame) so I can stand it near the stove and let it warm up ( the plastic, not the stove). I will then explain that though the plastic is warming, the heat is less than from the stove, but the side of the plastic facing the stove is making it hotter(!?). I will try this as a point of reference for a discussion and explain that this is what is being claimed by the "global warmin" crowd, "back radiation" is making the world hotter. If only we could utilise this "free energy" we would never need to build another power station ever.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#85
You are one up on me there Richard111, you have a social circle.
Mine what there is of it, is purely "virtual".

The how does the cooler atmosphere warm a warmer earth "starter" is my first step.

The experiment is intended as a further, or later step to illustrate what CO2 actually does.
Does CO2 aid distribution of heat, or retard or retain heat flow (as "AGW" says it does).
Whether the experiment is a good similie to earth or not is secondary (almost irrelevant),
it is merely to illustrate what CO2 actually does.
That the differing ideas give different results for the same experiment is surely the experiments strength.

Let the results settle the matter.
(02-20-2010, 01:11 AM)Richard111 Wrote: I will then explain that though the plastic is warming, the heat is less than from the stove, but the side of the plastic facing the stove is making it hotter(!?).

Yes, the plastic bottle does not block all the IR, but painting it the appropriate colour,
would be a better similie of earth in a vague sort of way.
Inside the bottle the atmosphere would warm mostly by conduction and a little radiaition (and any other "opposing" effects to the heating).
Then we see the effects of the various atmospheric constituents upon the rate of cooling change of temperature.
The experiment is trying to illustrate CO2 (and other constitunets) effect/s upon heat distribution,
not the actual (supposed / misconcieved) back radiation effect as such.
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.
Reply
#86
I am studying Michael Hammer's paper, last link in SST's post #51 on page 6. He seemed to be covering most of the points you mention until I ran into a blank wall.

Quote:The radiation from the cloud tops is admittedly no longer radiation directly from earth’s surface but it is still black body radiation and the fraction in the atmospheric window (and in the gaps between the lines at other wavelengths) can still escape directly to space without impediment from green house gas effects. Thus, while clouds do cause some attenuation, their action does not negate the basis of the hypothesis being presented in this paper.

7. ENERGY RADIATION FROM THE TROPOPAUSE

My emphasis. I have retained the next segment title in the quote to help recover the above paragraph.

As far as I am aware there are green house gases above the cloud tops. These will have the same effect on cloud top radiation as on surface radiation.

How to resolve this apparent contradiction? Or am I missing something?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#87
I think you'll find it is Micheal missing something.
For once he actually is correct in comparing the "source" of the radiation to absolute zero, if it escapes to space directly through the atmospheric window.
I hasten to clarify that space is not at absolute zero, but nothing does emit zero watts, if you see what I mean.
At anywhere else within radiation budgets / G/house "thinking" such a figure is wrong.
Relatively speaking.

I doubt he meant that though in his writing, I suspect he wants to "justify" why back radiation from above the clouds
does not reach back down to the earths lower atmosphere as classic G/house effect "theory" suggests it should.
Maybe he also is trying to "not" explain upper atmospheirc observed heating by increased G/house gases,
in such a way as to help his own explanations.

You have spotted one of the logical inconsistencies that G/house thinking needs to be believed, within Micheal's words.
AND, the knots people tie themselves up in trying to explain "things" using any form of G/house.
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.
Reply
#88
Derek, the plastic does block ALL the radiation. As the plastic warms it will radiate, half on one side and half on the other. Both sides will radiate appropriate to the temperature of the plastic, not the source.

This appears to be a problem with all measurements from an enclosed environment. You cannot isolate the effects of the container.

My dumb bunny question to people who get on their high horses about green living is to stamp my foot and announce "This ground is radiating up into the air, a portion of it is absorbed by the CO2 in the air and half of that portion comes back to the ground. How does that make the ground warmer when the heat came from the ground in the first place? Sure, some heat went into the air, but warm air goes upwards, it doesn't come back down. So CO2 helps keep things cool."

I believe in keeping it simple. Big Grin
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#89
I agree in keeping it simple Richard111, this experiment simply shows more CO2 reduces the rate of warming, and increases the rate of cooling,
not what "greenies" say it should do, infact simply the opposite.

Hmm, I wonder if some of the visible wavelengths pass straight through the plastic, so not all are absorbed.

AND, does the plastic radiate at (very roughly) the same frequencies of the earths surface given the temperature it attains, especially if painted in the correct colour of paint.
I would also move the bottle further from the fire to reduce conduction by air to the bottle.

The "intracacies" of the experiment are not that important to be honest as they are the same in all runs.
What matters surely is how the rate of temp change varies according to the atmospheric constituents.
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.
Reply
#90
I really like Willis Eschenbach's remarks:

"Let me give my example again, of why simple physics is inadequate when dealing with complex systems, it's an easy one to understand.

Suppose that I want to find out about how temperature affects solids. I take a 75 kg block of steel, and I put the bottom end of it in a bucket of hot water. I duct tape a thermometer to the top end in the best experimental fashion, and I start recording how the temperature change with time. At first, nothing happens. So I wait. And soon, the temperature of the other end of the block of steel starts rising. Hey, simple physics, right?

To verify my results, I try the experiment with a block of copper. I get the same result, the end of the block that’s not in the hot water soon begins to warm up. I try it with a block of glass, same thing. My tentative conclusion is that simple physics says that if you heat one end of a solid, the other end will eventually heat up as well.

So I look around for a final test. Not seeing anything obvious, I have a flash of insight. I weigh about 75 kg. So I sit with my feet in the bucket of hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth, and wait for my head to heat up. This experimental setup is shown in Figure 1 above.

After all, simple physics is my guideline, I know what’s going to happen, I just have to wait.

And wait … and wait …

As our thought experiment shows, simple physics may simply not work when applied to a complex system. The problem is that there are feedback mechanisms that negate the effect of the hot water on my cold toes. My body has a preferential temperature which is not set by the external forcings."
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#91
If I suggest stuffing anyone into any of the plastic bottles JohnWho,
I will admit you have a valid criticism, in this case however I do not think you have.
Big Grin

To put the Eschenbach's quote above in another way
make sure you are testing apples only, not apples, and frogs, or whatever.
In the experiment only changing the atmospheric constituents are there any "frogs",
or does it just test "apples" as I think it does.

AND, yes in a way the experiment "tests" the constituents specific heat capacity,
furthermore it shows CO2 has a lower one than (at least some of) the other constituents.
So, Eshenbach's example is OK, if you are only testing steel and copper blocks in the same way.
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.
Reply
#92
(02-20-2010, 07:34 AM)Derek Wrote: If I suggest stuffing anyone into any of the plastic bottles JohnWho,
I will admit you have a valid criticism, in this case however I do not think you have.

Stuff someone in plastic bottles (*cough*algore*cough*) - no I would not find that acceptable either.

Tongue
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#93
re Gore in a bottle.
Great minds think alike,
others seldom differ.

Big Grin
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.
Reply
#94
Just saw this old article from 2008 and thought you might want to see it Derek if you haven't already.

Quote:New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
Reply
#95
Thank you HarpoSpoke.
I am not sure if I have seen that one before, I will go through it soon.
I am familiar at a very basic level with Miskolczi's work,
this is in my opening browser cache.
http://miskolczi.webs.com/

Unfortunately he still adds up radiation budgets....
(even after noticing the surface / air temperature difference in standard greenhouse equations.)

AND, the relationship he notes between water vapour and CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere,
might well be largely due to Henry's law.......No one seems to have considered that possibility. ?
Somewhat obscured by varying cloud formation levels (ie Svensmark effect).
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.
Reply
#96
(02-20-2010, 07:16 AM)JohnWho Wrote: I really like Willis Eschenbach's remarks:

"Let me give my example again, of why simple physics is inadequate when dealing with complex systems, it's an easy one to understand.

Suppose that I want to find out about how temperature affects solids. I take a 75 kg block of steel, and I put the bottom end of it in a bucket of hot water. I duct tape a thermometer to the top end in the best experimental fashion, and I start recording how the temperature change with time. At first, nothing happens. So I wait. And soon, the temperature of the other end of the block of steel starts rising. Hey, simple physics, right?

To verify my results, I try the experiment with a block of copper. I get the same result, the end of the block that’s not in the hot water soon begins to warm up. I try it with a block of glass, same thing. My tentative conclusion is that simple physics says that if you heat one end of a solid, the other end will eventually heat up as well.

So I look around for a final test. Not seeing anything obvious, I have a flash of insight. I weigh about 75 kg. So I sit with my feet in the bucket of hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth, and wait for my head to heat up. This experimental setup is shown in Figure 1 above.

After all, simple physics is my guideline, I know what’s going to happen, I just have to wait.

And wait … and wait …

As our thought experiment shows, simple physics may simply not work when applied to a complex system. The problem is that there are feedback mechanisms that negate the effect of the hot water on my cold toes. My body has a preferential temperature which is not set by the external forcings."

Yes that is one of the weaknesses of simple experiments,the failure to make the transition from the simple to the complex in explanation.

That is one of the reasons why I am always dissatisfied with the conventional CO2 absorption/emission explanations.They are too simple and does not account for external factors that can effect the claimed efficacy of the CO2 warming capabilities itself.

James Peden in his Editorial made it clear that LABORATORY experiments can only tell us so much about the true nature of CO2,that we should be cautious with any schoolroom experiments concerning the alleged capability of "greenhouse" gases.

Willis is correct in that neat comment,that all we have is simple explanation,but when we include the true state of the Earths climate in,then the certainty level of what we think we know goes down.

The way I see it is that incoming solar radiation at times exceed the Earths outgoing flow of energy,and other times it is in the reverse,with the Earths oceans being the main ballast smoothing out to a certain level the big changes of incoming and outgoing radiation levels.

CO2 is obviously a really small player in the climate itself and a bigger player on the surface,where it can influence land changes,that then indirectly exert some influence on the regional climate setting.

The "simple" physics is an unsatisfactorily weak explanation.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#97
(02-18-2010, 02:01 PM)Richard111 Wrote: Okay, here is my report.

I obtained an empty 2 litre plastic bottle that previously held soda water. I lopped off top and bottom and cut the tube to make a flat(ish) piece of plastic. By the way, I miked it at 0.3mm thick (or is that thin?)

The stove is now nice and warm, very evident to the palm of my hand held about a foot away from the side of the stove. I then introduced the above piece of plastic between my hand and the stove.

The heat on my hand stopped instantly. Remove the plastic and the heat returned. It didn't stop some of the heat, it stopped all of it. Most strange feeling, that sudden loss of heat. Try it yourself.

Any so called experiments involving plastic bottles do not get my support.

I thought a main problem with that experiment,was that he used a heat source for only a few seconds,thus making it impossible for the contents of the bottles to get any radiant energy sufficient to build up inside the bottles.

If he ran it for 15 minutes or more,then some of the energy would finally show up in the bottles.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#98
I agree about the heat source, hence the suggestion of moving the bottles further away from the source.

Is anyone going to comment on the specific heat capacity of CO2. ?
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.
Reply
#99
OK, time for a step backwards.

What does watts per square metre describe in relation to IR. ?
It is a term used (of three) to describe the same thing.
The (1) temperature of an object, determines the (Planck curve) distribution curve of the thermal radiation emitted by the object.
This can also be described by the (2) peak frequency of the Planck curve emitted, or it's (3) watts per metre equivalent.

In other words the watts per square metre describes the "pressure" not the amount.
Put in electrical terms W/M2 is the equivalent of voltage, but without the amperage being described.
W/M2 is only part of the "whole picture" and a very misleading "part" it can be.

Imagine two objects at the same temperature, but one is twice the size of the other.
They would both have the same frequency of emission, and so the same W/M2,
but one would be emitting more, that is simply not described by W/M2 alone.

IR Budgets treat the "pressure" of the heat flows as if they were volumes.
ie, a 12 and an 18 volt flow would not add up to 30 volts.
You would have to know the amperage of each flow.
In heat flows, if the "amperage" was the same for each object in the above example then the voltage would be 15 volts.

So, IR budgets,
1) Treat pressure of flow as volume.
2) Use the differences of pressures of flow to infer volumes of heat flow.
3) Adds rather than relatively calculate flows.
4) And do not take into account the relative volumes of the heat flows.
(There may well be more, these are the first few that spring to mind)

Have I really noticed something so obvious,
W/M2 does not account for the volume of the heat flow, merely it's pressure. ?
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.
Reply
I think I have missed out something very basic in the above, but it runs through the posts "problems".

The state of the thermal heat energy emitting "thing",
ie is it solid, liquid or a gas.

Solids emit according to the Planck curve and their temperature.
Gases emit according to heating or cooling and their physical properties.
Liquids I think act like a solid.

In CO2's case this is relatively easy, it is a gas, so behaves according to it's physical properties.
There does appear to be considerable confusions regarding CO2's actual properties,
so, some experiments are desperately needed to try to sort this out.
Preferably experiments aimed at determining CO2's properties with regards to it's specific heat capacity / content (compared to the atmosphere it is in),
as the experiment (in some form or other) I have been looking at is intended to hopefully show.
If CO2 does indeed have a lower heat capacity than the atmosphere it is in, then
it would be able to react radiatively to both heating or cooling,
as relatively to the atmosphere containing it,
CO2 would always be cooling.

The earth's surface is relatively "easy", it is a solid, so radiates according to it's temperature / emissivity / Planck curve.

Water is the real complexity, it is a solid, a liquid, and a gas (it also sublimes), at virtually all points within IR budgets.
Because of the changes of state, water also moves around vast amounts of latent heat within IR budgets.
Water also because of it's high specific heat capacity as a liquid, moves around vast amounts of cold (vertically within the atmosphere) as rain is usually cold.

I wonder if it is at all possible to represent all these various attributes / differences in the w/m2 figures used in IR budgets,
surely this is not as simple a mistake as merely comparing apples and oranges,
but nearer to comparing many, many types of fruit, and vegetables all at the same time.
When patently they are vastly different.

The other "thing" I do not understand how it is dealt with in the w/m2 figures.
If two objects are a distance apart, then if the objects distance apart is doubled, then the amount of w/m2 would reduce considerably,
the frequency would not reduce of the IR surely, but just the amount recieved by the cooler object.
This "amount" is what is concerning me, it does not seem to be taken into account in a meaningful way.

The relative difference in temperature remains between two objects, but the amount recieved reduces as distance between them increases.
If this resulted in a lower w/m2, how is it comparable to radiation recieved from another (third) object that is nearer but cooler..
It would be added, not relatively calculated surely, as that is the way IR budgets appear to "work".
In the real world it would be absorbed by amount recieved and relatively.....
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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)