Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 255 Votes - 2.83 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
02-24-2010, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 02-24-2010 01:14 PM by Richard111.)
Post: #61
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Derek, I did say:

Quote:CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere and provides very effective cooling at and above 300mb.

What I am looking for is data on how much heat over what time period is passed into the surrounding air by by CO2 absorbing surface radiation.

The major constituents of the atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen, have very limited spectral signatures. Oxygen being a bit better at radiating that nitrogen. This strikes me as a good candidate to store heat. But! I am trying to understand the DRY adiabatic lapse rate. LINK

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2010, 10:27 AM
Post: #62
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Well, after my enforced absence curtesy Hutchison 3G UK Ltd and my ability to reconnect curtesy Vodafone -pay-as-you-go-, I have been able to reread my Post #57 above and I can add one more reference link:

Gases - Specific Heat Capacities and Individual Gas Constants

This excellent site was brought to my attention by SST in a post he made in the private forum.

My assumption that air would have a heat capacity of 1kj/kg/K seems close enough (for government work anyway), and the surface radiation level of 400W/m^2 will equate to a temperature of 16C. As I said in Post #57 above the CO2 will absorb about 8% of that energy, some 32W/m^2. I wondered what would be the temperature rise if the 200gram of CO2 were able to pass all the intercepted energy into into the associated 250 cubic meters of air.

Right, so we have 32 joules per second and we have an air mass of 312.5kg which will require 312,500 joules to raise the temperature 1 degree C. So 312,500 divide by 32 equals 9765.625 seconds, divide by 60 equals 162.76 minutes, divide by 60 equals 2.7 hours. YIKES! We are all doomed!

Phew! Still here so CO2 can't be 100% efficient at trapping heat.

So, still haven't figured out how much heat is passed to the air against how much is reradiated. Definitely seems reradiation of absorbed energy is the more prevalent condition. Ah, well back to web searches.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2010, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2010 12:47 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #63
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Further to my thoughts on heat capacity I compared the number of joules of energy required to raise the temperature of all the air in a column on a 1 square meter base with the amount of water that would also rise by 1 degree C for the same energy.

Computing a pressure of 14.7 lbs per square inch on an area of 1 square meter gives 10,333 kilograms. With a heat capacity of 1kj/kg/K we need 10,333,000 joules to raise the temperature 1 degree C.

Divide that number by 4kj/kg/K, heat capacity for water, we get 2,583 kilograms. Call it 2.6 cubic meters of water.

And what is the average depth of the oceans? Makes you think.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2010, 02:01 PM
Post: #64
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(04-05-2010 12:20 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Divide that number by 4kj/kg/K, heat capacity for water, we get 2,583 kilograms. Call it 2.6 cubic meters of water.

And what is the average depth of the oceans? Makes you think.

4 kilometres or 2 and a half miles is the average depth of the oceans from memory.
If I also remember correctly, that means the oceans have 800 to 900 times the heat capacity of the whole of the atmosphere.

WHO'S THE DADDY........

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2010 12:04 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #65
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(04-05-2010 02:01 PM)Derek Wrote:  
(04-05-2010 12:20 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Divide that number by 4kj/kg/K, heat capacity for water, we get 2,583 kilograms. Call it 2.6 cubic meters of water.

And what is the average depth of the oceans? Makes you think.

4 kilometres or 2 and a half miles is the average depth of the oceans from memory.
If I also remember correctly, that means the oceans have 800 to 900 times the heat capacity of the whole of the atmosphere.

WHO'S THE DADDY........

Well now, divide 4000 by 2.5 you get 1,600 Rolleyes Okay, okay, I know that is not the correct comparison of total mass but most greenies won,t see that. They don't do science. Big Grin

Anyway, I just popped in to announce I think I will be abscent for a while. I have just read the following:

Quote:Dr. Miskolczi’s Constant was discovered with a program that is the result of a project started 25 years ago in Hungary. It was then he began the process of writing a high-resolution radiative transfer program which would describe the Earth’s climate using the TIGR Global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Paris database. With this information he was able to accurately describe mathematically how the atmosphere absorbs and releases heat using a long standing Equation called the Schwarzschild-Milne transfer equation to accurately calculate the Earths infrared optical depth. That is what Global climate is; the process by which Earth either holds onto or releases heat.

Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 03:08 AM
Post: #66
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Balderdash! (I edited the first entry! Angry) You have to be an account holder to download the pdf files. They don't say how much. I work on the theory if you have to ask you can't afford it. Sad

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 12:11 PM
Post: #67
RE: Layman struggles with Science
It seems about 96.5% of all the planet's water is in the oceans, seas, and bays. LINK This amounts to 1,338,000,000 cubic kilometers of water.

1 cubic kilometer is 10^9 cubic meters. 1 cubic meter of water is 1,000 kg.
Therefore the mass of the oceans is 1.338 x 10^21 kg.

From this interesting site for beginners like me, Specific Heat Capacity of Water, I am told it will require 4,187 joules of energy to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram (or 1 litre) of water 1 degree Celcius.

So 1.338 x 10^21 times 4.187 x 10^3 = 5.602206 x 10^24 joules of energy are needed to raise total ocean temperature 1C.

Now for the atmosphere. We need the global surface area, LINK, which gives us 510,072,200 square kilometres, multiply by 10^6 and we have global surface area in square meters. Multiply that by the air mass above each square meter, 1.0333 x 10^4, we get 5.2706 x 10^18 kg. And now multiply by specific heat of air, 1.01 x 10^3, and we have 5.323306 x 10^21 joules of energy to raise total atmosphere temperature 1 degree Celcius.

Air/water heat difference = 1 : 1052.4 i.e. oceans have more than 1,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

Air/water mass difference = 1 : 254 i.e. oceans have more than 250 times the mass of the atmosphere. Given the difference in the specific heat capacities, air 1kj/kg/K and water 4kj/kg/K, the figures seem about right.

And people dare to talk knowingly about thermal runaway in the ATMOSPHERE!

How and why is this AGW nonsense being allowed to continue?

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 12:55 PM
Post: #68
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(04-06-2010 12:02 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Well now, divide 4000 by 2.5 you get 1,600 Rolleyes Okay, okay, I know that is not the correct comparison of total mass but most greenies won,t see that. They don't do science. Big Grin

Errr, I'm not nit picking Richard111 but,
what % of the earth's surface is covered by oceans (71%),
and what % is covered by the atmosphere (100%). ?
Hence slightly lower 800 to 900 times heat capacity answer I gave.

That apart loads of other good stuff, I'll have a read through in a day or two,
but what does strike me is the "point of view dilemma", ie CO2 effect
and what a physicist says happens from a molecular point of view,
and what a chemist says happens from a mass in th atmosphere point of view.
Totally opposite effects for the same thing.

There may well be a "standard physics" and "quantum mechanics" view point dilemma for radiation / heat flows as well.
Damned silly things "photons" - whatever they really are......

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 12:11 AM
Post: #69
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Looks like our last posts crossed in the net.

I know what you mean but don't know the answer. I have read over at WUWT that oceans have 270 times volume of the atmosphere. I can't figure out how much air is pushed up by mountains and such, but quick rule of thumb suggests 270 x 4 = 1080, still more than 1,000 times more heat capacity in the oceans. (I really do believe in KISS. Smile )

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 10:03 PM
Post: #70
RE: Layman struggles with Science
1,000 times, or 800 to 900 times, either way Richard111 we roughly agree.
We may get there by differing routes, but when the answer is basically the same,
then we appear to be agreeing the path is correct.

AND, the agreeing, by differing routes, gives more strength to our overall position.

NB - I will be a lot more at ease with Dr. Miskolczi's works when, or if, he moves away from the W/m2 based figures.
I think his starting point is obviously correct, but soon after it gets all confused and senseless,
relying on comparing figures that are not (directly) comparable.

Maybe "he" needs a temperature conversion factor before comparisons can be made.
The picture is still very "murky" at present, I'm almost certain this is mostly because of the use of W/m2 figures.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 11:00 PM
Post: #71
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Well, Derek, that is the point of this thread, Layman struggles with science.
I am trying to derive my own numbers from what I see as basic principles. I accept I could be hilariously wrong but hope it might trigger a response that could help us all to understand the scale of this debate.
Someone like George E. Smith, who posts over at WUWT, seems to be able to explain the physics at my level of understanding.

This business of "forcings" (spit!), consider two equal black bodies in space, one has a higher energy level (temperature reading), both are well above zero K so both are radiating IR at each other. If the cooler body recieves radiation above the level of its own radiative output, it will indeed warm up some. The hotter body will also recieve radiation from the cooler body but it CANNOT heat up! It is the SOURCE of the energy for that two body system. The RATE OF COOLING will be reduced. This is construed as a forcing!!!! In watts per meter squared yet!!!

Do they TEACH this stuff in universities??? So what is the "forcing" on the surface of the sun due to the presence of the planet earth?
In fact we should include the "forcing" from the moon generated by reflected light from the earth.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 11:36 PM
Post: #72
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(04-07-2010 11:00 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Well, Derek, that is the point of this thread, Layman struggles with science.

This business of "forcings" (spit!), consider two equal black bodies in space, one has a higher energy level (temperature reading), both are well above zero K so both are radiating IR at each other. If the cooler body recieves radiation above the level of its own radiative output, it will indeed warm up some. The hotter body will also recieve radiation from the cooler body but it CANNOT heat up! It is the SOURCE of the energy for that two body system. The RATE OF COOLING will be reduced. This is construed as a forcing!!!! In watts per meter squared yet!!!

Do they TEACH this stuff in universities??? So what is the "forcing" on the surface of the sun due to the presence of the planet earth?
In fact we should include the "forcing" from the moon generated by reflected light from the earth.

I have recently been having a "discussion" (with Ferdy of all people....) where I am saying that if you have two 1 metre cubes of water instead of black bodies in the classical "similie".
The basics are as follows, one cube of water is at 30C the other at 90C.
I say the hotter water cube (90C) will cooler quicker in the presence of the cooler water cube (30C) than on it's own.
I say because the lower frequency / temperature radiation of the 30C water will cool the 90C water over and above the 90C water cubes thermal radiation emission rate,
untill they both reach the same temperature.
Ferdy says the 90C cube will cool quicker on it's own, BECAUSE it is warmed by the 30C water's themal radiation,
BECAUSE ALL RADIATION IS POSITIVE.................
Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin
He then added to the above.
Anything recieving radiation is warmed by the recieved thermal radiation REGARDLESS of it's temperature.....
ROFLMAO..

It ain't the layman that are / is having trouble understanding the "science".
It is the "scientists" trying to justify the basic tenants of "AGW science" that are having "trouble explaining the science".....
By neccesarily having to break what we know ARE laws of nature,
in the above case, the second law of thermodynamics.
As far as thermal radiation is concerned,
cooler things CAN NOT heat warmer things - PERIOD.

If you look at the above similie in terms of W/m2 then Ferdy's suggestion seems "reasonable",
and is hence why I say the W/m2 figures are completely unfit for purpose, in this context.
Furthermore the W/m2 figures used make what we KNOW are physically impossible "additions" possible,
WHEN WE KNOW THEY ARE NOT.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2010, 05:31 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2010 05:34 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #73
RE: Layman struggles with Science
:sigh: Whatever happened to the concepts of gross and net radiation? I wish they would explain where all this extra free energy comes from then we wouldn't need coal, oil or nuclear power generating. Good ole steam with free heat will do it. Smile

Was trying to explain to somebody how the atmosphere keeps us warm, like putting a cosy on the teapot. Keeps the tea warm for longer but sure don't heat it up.

Air is a very good insulator. It also ain't too good at conducting heat unless it is moving fast, like lots of wind. If there were no greenhouse gases we would surely fry!

I think we should call them COSY gasses. Remember, you heard it here first! Smile

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2010, 05:45 AM
Post: #74
RE: Layman struggles with Science
The teapot has a heat source, (the sun + geothermal).
Where people go "wrong" is,
1) Assuming that the heat source keeps on putting heat in faster than the blanket can let it escape.
2) We are making the blanket thicker and that is the source of the problem.
3) Nature appears to have very robust ways to put more or less holes in the cosy as and when required
- we just do not have a clue as of how yet
- most of us arn't even looking at that problem (or know that is the "problem") in any way whatsoever.

COSY gasses get rid of the heat, so making the planet bearable under all those insulating gases.
People have the effects the wrong way round.
The cosy on the teapot is the O2 and N2,
the holes in the cosy are mostly water vapour and a little by CO2
+ one or two virtually insignificant others like methane etc..

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2010, 12:16 PM
Post: #75
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Quote:Anything recieving radiation is warmed by the recieved thermal radiation REGARDLESS of it's temperature.....

WHAT!

Then a cold bath should warm me up a little.After all there are still some thermal radiation coming up from the cold water.

Rolleyes

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2010, 11:57 PM
Post: #76
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(04-08-2010 05:45 AM)Derek Wrote:  2) We are making the blanket thicker and that is the source of the problem.
3) Nature appears to have very robust ways to put more or less holes in the cosy as and when required
- we just do not have a clue as of how yet
- most of us arn't even looking at that problem (or know that is the "problem") in any way whatsoever.

Ah, now here is the crux. GHGs absorb a portion of the infrared energy from any source. Scientific fact. The absorbed energy is either reradiated isotropically or a portion, unspecified, warms the atmosphere.

The global surface is claimed to radiate at 390W/m^2.

Of the TSI of 1,366W/m^2, some 46% is infrared radiation, that is 628.36W/m^2. This is what the sunlit side of the planet is seeing. The dark side is not seeing this level of input energy.

To divide that figure by 4 and claim that that is what the whole planet is getting strikes me as very dodgy accounting for a budget.

Increasing levels of upper tropospheric CO2 will absorb more of that radiation, but only when on the sunlit side of the planet.

That incoming IR (in the greenhouse bands) will be severly attenuated by the GH gases, more so than claiming only a portion of it arriving.

I say again, very dodgy accounting.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2010, 05:34 AM
Post: #77
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(04-08-2010 11:57 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  I say again, very dodgy accounting.

Spot on, and all made possible by the use of the W/m2 figures...
BTW - Richard111, have you read my latest post in the coffee thread. ?

re SST and "WHAT!"
Yup, that is what was said, unbelievable,
all "justified" by quantum mechanics "explanations" and those imaginary "photons",
that "do not describe heat flows", again, in their own words...

I think this is the second major "view point dilemma" I have spotted in "the consensus science",
the first being the physicists (molar - specific heat of CO2 higher) and
the chemists (mass in the atmosphere - -specific heat of CO2 lower) view of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Again, in both cases, the physicists "view" (Quantum / photons, and molar) is admitted as
not explaining what we can actually observe (relative heat flows, and mass based calculations),
but is held up as proof of AGW..........
I think I'm onto something here, what do others think. ?

I am wrong apparently in my understanding that there is no negative energy, only differing levels of energy.

Richard S Courtney, explains it in these terms.
" Simply, there is only energy and there is no such thing as 'negative energy'.
A 'cold' object radiates heat because it is hot relative to absolute
zero temperature.
But a 'cold' object does not radiate as much heat as a
hotter one.

'Cold' can not be radiated because only energy can be radiated and
a 'cold' object radiates less energy than a hotter one but
cannot radiate 'negative energy' (because 'negative energy' does not exist).

So, if a hotter object were isolated in the vacuum of space
it would lose heat faster than if a colder object were near to it.

Perhaps it would help understanding if one were to consider visible light
instead of IR.
So, think of two light bulbs; one of 100W output and the
other of 10W output.

Would the surface of the 100W bulb be brighter or dimmer when illuminated
by the nearby 10W bulb?
"

There were other explanations given elsewhere by others, including
how a (larger) cooler object could have it's radiation concentrated onto a smaller (warmer) object
by a magnifying lens and so heat the smaller (warmer) object.

I can see the logic in both above explanations / examples.
But I then notice the same people are radiation / energy specialists,
one specifically saying that he / she does not know much about heat flows.
The same people than say heat flows are not relevant to energy / radiation flows....
So, I read into that that they are not really too sure either in all honesty.

For me I can not get past imagining an objects surface is a certain temperature, and so at a certain energy state, or level.
If radiation is recieved at a lower temperature (energy state or level) then surely the surface would relatively absorb the radiation.
For example a 20C object recieving radiation from a 10C object would absorb the radiation and become 15C.

I am not sure that heat flows are not relevant, nor
that radiation energy transfers are always positive.
My gut feeling is that they are relatively absorbed .
What do others here think. ?

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2010, 06:38 AM
Post: #78
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Quote:re SST and "WHAT!"
Yup, that is what was said, unbelievable,
all "justified" by quantum mechanics "explanations" and those imaginary "photons",
that "do not describe heat flows", again, in their own words...

Sitting in the cold water beautifully explains the fact that a human body is LOSING thermal energy to the water.

When the water is a little above your body temperature,it feels warm and the thermal energy is leaving the water and entering the contented human.

In all cases the exchange is definitely one way,from warm to cool.

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2010, 06:52 AM
Post: #79
RE: Layman struggles with Science
I understand your comment SST,
but the reply is instantly, yes, that is conduction ie, heat flows,
radiation / energy (specifically within the atmosphere) flows are different.

I think the best way to settle this "is all radiation positive" question,
is to see if a warmer object cools quicker or slower in the presence of a cooler object.
If quicker then radiation is absorbed relatively,
if it cools more slowly then radiation is all positive.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2010, 10:26 AM
Post: #80
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Sometimes when "things" get to me, I find a dog walk helps..

Richard S Courtney,
"
Would the surface of the 100W bulb be brighter or dimmer when illuminated
by the nearby 10W bulb?
"

I am not sure this example or way of thinking about radiation works,
the elements of the two bulbs would be at very high temperatures, probably very similar temperatures.
I wonder whether Richard's question is the correct question, whether the 100W bulb would be brighter or dimmer, there would certainly be more light in the room,
but that's a different view point / matter.
I would of thought the question is really does the bulbs surface keep on getting hotter and hotter due to the recieved (10W) positive radiation.
Well, at least slightly hotter on the bulbs side adjacent to the 10W bulb.
I think there would be very little change as the temperature of the filaments would be very similar.

(04-09-2010 05:34 AM)Derek Wrote:  There were other explanations given elsewhere by others, including
how a (larger) cooler object could have it's radiation concentrated onto a smaller (warmer) object
by a magnifying lens and so heat the smaller (warmer) object.

This one threw me, the first one given "elsewhere" that has, hence my ensuing dog walk..
BUT, I realised during my dog walk that,
my experience of magnifying lens is with sunlight. Concentrating a very high temperature (although very disperse at 95 million miles from source),
radiation is bound to get a warmer spot of concentration.
However what would happen in concentrating a cooler radiation flow,
well a cold concentration spot obviously, not a hot one.
Anything under this cold spot, would be cooled by it, not heated by it,
so the example does not show how a cooler thing could warm a hotter thing.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)