tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8236991255663164358..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Mice, Sinking Ship, Etc.EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30092147025423862622012-04-08T17:32:23.471-04:002012-04-08T17:32:23.471-04:00> These ex cathedra pronouncements remind me of...> These ex cathedra pronouncements remind me of John Searle's Chinese room experiment which sets out to demonstrate that imposing and obeying rules can coexist with zero understanding.<br /><br />I believe Searle was more circumspect than that. <br /><br />Unless one can show that syntax suffices for semantics, one should stick to green houses.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29858553062106581022012-04-08T15:46:20.664-04:002012-04-08T15:46:20.664-04:00A_ray_in_dilbert_space,
Confucius he say, a photo...A_ray_in_dilbert_space,<br /><br />Confucius he say, a photon absorbed by a surface causes local warming of that surface.<br /><br />Confucius he say, a man can believe he gets richer, by giving 100 to fool who give him 50.<br /><br />Confucius he say, I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there.Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31569726372031787082012-04-08T12:41:38.323-04:002012-04-08T12:41:38.323-04:00Andrew,
It is your contention that the backradiat...Andrew, <br />It is your contention that the backradiation from the greenhouse effect cannot warm the surface, but merely causes it to cool more slowly. Is that correct?<br /><br />OK, can we at least stipulate that a photon absorbed by a body will warm that body? And if so, how does the absorbing body know if the photon came from a warm or a cold body?a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56084980403954164412012-04-08T08:36:35.017-04:002012-04-08T08:36:35.017-04:00Climate Ferret
>>http://www.youtube.com/wat...Climate Ferret<br /><br />>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz3R9Z3oT-c<br /><br />If I understand it correctly the surface on the left is hot and on the right it's cold. Then the cold surface is hidden by a warmer , but still cold, surface so the temperature of the hot surface rises.<br /><br />I made that video. I also made this one:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mITUQo23nFE<br /><br />The reason I made these videos, was I having a conversation with a person who said a cold object could not emit radiation that could be absorbed by a hotter object.<br /><br />Which then led me wanting to clarify how the greenhouse worked so people would find it easier to understand.<br /><br />Obviously that cold brick is not warming that cold brick.<br /><br />Instead, the heat loss from the hot brick is slowed down by the colder brick, where the surface of the hot brick is internally heatedAndrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9875505470850919352012-04-08T07:51:15.162-04:002012-04-08T07:51:15.162-04:00A somewhat obscure youtube video showing back rad...A somewhat obscure youtube video showing back radiation. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch/v%3Dzz3R9Z3oT-c&ei=v3aBT9LRJMiTiQeemMSyBA&usg=AFQjCNEQUsAz0KlRRUfiR9BoP3SZpgmupQ<br /><br />If I understand it correctly the surface on the left is hot and on the right it's cold. Then the cold surface is hidden by a warmer , but still cold, surface so the temperature of the hot surface rises.<br /><br />Climate FerretAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5826648918923455572012-04-08T06:09:38.813-04:002012-04-08T06:09:38.813-04:00TK
Like many others here you seem to think that I...TK<br /><br />Like many others here you seem to think that I am saying the surface does not get warmer because of the GHE.<br /><br />What i am objecting to is the strange use of unscientific imprecise language. <br /><br />If the surface is cooling at night or thru the winter, then saying the atmosphere is warming the surface is just a peculiar use of language which is not scientific and just leads to confusion.<br /><br />Things are not warming when they are cooling more slowly, and they are heating the thing that is said to be warming them.<br /><br />It is this amazingly bizarre use of language that I am objecting to.Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1786876399457754352012-04-07T17:19:20.930-04:002012-04-07T17:19:20.930-04:00Hey,
as english is not my first language i really...Hey, <br />as english is not my first language i really do have the impression that different words are used for multiple meanings (wich i guess is the semantic problems mentioned above). For me its not clear what someone wants to describe by the word "warming". Does it mean warming up in terms of increasing its temperature or does is mean it receives energy. So Andrew to be absolutely clear lets say:<br />-"warming" applies to a certain object, for example the surface or the atmosphere and describes that its temperature rises over time<br />-"cooling" describes the decrease of temperature over time<br />-instead of saying that a certain object is warmed by another one lets be more precisely and say that it receives energy from it<br /><br />Now lets look at a steady state climate, that is where the the temperatures of the atmosphere and the surface do not change over time. Nothing warms or cools BUT both the atmosphere and the surface radiate and receive (from each other as well as from the sun) energy. As the temperature is constant incoming energy equals outgoing energy. Now we compare this state to one where some conditions are changed (i think this is what Arthur wanted to point out), that is where the amount of radiation of the atmosphere towards the surface is changed. Perhaps your problem is that the energy which comes from the atmosphere was originally radiated from the surface. But this is no problem at all, remember we are looking at a steady state system (which took a long time to equilibrate) and change the conditions now. The atmosphere was and is on average colder than the surface but it does always contribute to the energy budget of the surface. Why should the surface NOT be able to warm up as a result of a changed atmosphere radiation pattern? Arthur already pointed out (which was very enlightening, thank you for that) why you cant simply treat the system with classic thermodynamics.TKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72081260417204780652012-04-07T17:05:01.495-04:002012-04-07T17:05:01.495-04:00"Why does Wiki obfuscate... "
I have h..."Why does Wiki obfuscate... " <br /><br />I have had nothing to do with Wiki, at least not so far. <br /><br />Although I have reservations about the man , this is a case where I would apply Popper's demarcation principle. If you can't come up with a falsifiable disagreement * with Wiki then in this case you are probably not disagreeing with it.** <br /><br />William and Eli have said very similar things using other words. <br /><br />[* That excludes your statement about the greenhouse effect being dominated by gh gases near the surface where I disagree.. and I am not returning to that discussion now]. <br />-------------------<br />**. That is what distinguishes this from Gerlich and Tscheuchner. Amongst other things their original paper really does include a disagreement with modern physics. They did though try to use linguistic deviation to deflect attention from the falsification when it came.Geoff Wexlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30912303054729974722012-04-07T15:09:10.429-04:002012-04-07T15:09:10.429-04:00Geoff
Why does Wiki obfuscate about the reality t...Geoff<br /><br />Why does Wiki obfuscate about the reality the surface is *always* heating the colder atmosphere?<br /><br />Why are you all controlling that so urgently?Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55343809749902264672012-04-07T15:03:57.724-04:002012-04-07T15:03:57.724-04:00Andrew, you've never heard of net heat flow? ...Andrew, you've never heard of net heat flow? <br /><br />Anyway, the larger point is, if you're going to allow the word "heat", with the many meanings people ascribe to it, to apply to the physical process by which a 290.1K reactor raises the temperature of the 290K surface, you should also allow it for the exact same physical process whereby a 289.9K reactor raises the temperature of the 290K surface. <br /><br />So it looks as though you are going to let people say "the 290.1K reactor heats the surface of the earth" but then rap them on the knuckles when they say the "289.9K reactor heats the surface", forcing them to say about the exact same physical process: "the 289.9K reactor prevents heat from escaping, thereby raising the temperature of the surface". If that is the case, your semantics will make it so their understanding of the relevant actual physical processes is lessened, not increased, and I'm sure that is not your goal.<br /><br />That is my last word, I'll be sure to look back and see what your reply is, but so help me GOD I won't reply back :)Utahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986078408707187695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78836597643450182862012-04-07T12:56:43.246-04:002012-04-07T12:56:43.246-04:00AEJ
I am sure that you can discover errors or poo...AEJ<br /><br />I am sure that you can discover errors or poor reasoning in other people's hurried comments. Most of them are irrelevant to your campaign to control the language and I simply don't have the time to review them all. I didn't see the one which you quoted from the comments in Stoat and I don't want to know unless it gets into Wikipedia.Geoff Wexlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45821544995251665152012-04-07T11:37:44.782-04:002012-04-07T11:37:44.782-04:00Utahn
Net heat is wrong. Net radiation is correct...Utahn<br /><br />Net heat is wrong. Net radiation is correct. There is no heat in radiation.<br /><br />Heat, radiation, electricity and so forth are energies but each is not the other.<br /><br />The IPCC say net radiation for the heating/cooling at the top of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Yochanan Kushni has been a director at NOAA for 13 years<br /><br />It is not like I am shaking science to its foundationsAndrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82525862568481052592012-04-07T11:17:32.710-04:002012-04-07T11:17:32.710-04:00Thanks Andrew for the reply. Since both the 289.9...Thanks Andrew for the reply. Since both the 289.9K and 290.1K reactors are causing the 290K surface temperature to rise, and both are causing this to occur by the *exact same physical mechanism*, I do feel it is unreasonable to state that it's fine to say the 290.1k reactors are heating the surface, but not fine to say the same thing for the 289.9k reactors. Either allow it for both instances or neither.<br /><br />If someone was trying to understand this situation and I told them "the 290.1 reactors heat the surface", but the "289.9 reactors are completely different, they only slow the loss of heat from the surface", I think I would have left them very confused. <br /><br />Take care, and if you haven't already read ScienceOfDoom on this kind of issue you might find it enjoyable, esp regarding imaginary vs real 2nd law. To be sure, I don't think you are a victim of the imaginary second law(unless you think there really is something fundamentally different about the physical mechanism that leads to surface warming in the 289.9 or 290.1 reactor cases). I suspect you are just having a problem stemming from the fact that "heat" and "warm" don't have universally accepted definitions. <br /><br />If you went on a crusade saying we should always use "net heat" to make sure it's clear what we're talking about, I might sign up, but if you insist one can use heat in one instance but not the other of the exact same physical process, count me out.Utahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986078408707187695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9943010457217078472012-04-07T07:37:12.071-04:002012-04-07T07:37:12.071-04:00Geoff
Look at this stupidity on William Connolley...Geoff<br /><br />Look at this stupidity on William Connolleys talk page<br /><br />"There appears to be a problem with not understanding the second law here? The second law applies to isolated (closed) physical systems. It does not apply to forced systems like an atmosphere subject to radiation. In a forced system of course "colder gases can warm the hotter layers below". So the people who are against the idea aren't ones with much knowledge of physics. Do we need to worry about them? I guess only if discussion about them becomes notable... --BozMo talk 13:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)<br /><br /> Or if, say, a large number of them started aggressively editing Wikipedia... :P MastCell Talk 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) <br /><br />Bozmo is a Cambridge UK educated PhD in Maths and evidently totally clueless how the greenhouse effect works.<br /><br />The whole thing would be comical were it not for the likes of James Annan and others joining in with the stupidity. <br /><br />Do you *really* think the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the Greenhouse house effect??<br /><br />How about you show some integrity and you point out to the others how foolish they have been?Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33082315514465539362012-04-07T07:25:03.749-04:002012-04-07T07:25:03.749-04:00Geoff
No matter how much you and the others obfus...Geoff<br /><br />No matter how much you and the others obfuscate and attempt to portray me as an unreasonable person, a cold body cannot ever heat a hotter body to a higher temperature.<br /><br />All the colder body can do is slow down the heat losses of the hotter body.Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42297001584904543062012-04-07T06:40:38.920-04:002012-04-07T06:40:38.920-04:00Rules about words.
The same ones can be used to p...<b>Rules about words.</b><br /><br />The same ones can be used to produce quite a variety of false outcomes and even some true ones.<br /><br />Where does this familiar string originate? <br /><br />"it confuses “radiative energy” and “heat”" <br /><br />Start here: <a href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/" rel="nofollow"> Google Scholar</a><br /><br />Enter the string and search. (To save time use copy/paste so as keep the quotation marks.) Eli may recognise the result.<br /><br />[<b>Repeat:</b> these people share some arguments but not conclusions]<br /><br />These ex cathedra pronouncements remind me of John Searle's Chinese room experiment which sets out to demonstrate that imposing and obeying rules can coexist with zero understanding.Geoff Wexlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31519328353370436682012-04-07T03:24:16.073-04:002012-04-07T03:24:16.073-04:00Utahn
>What do you think, yes or no: Do both t...Utahn<br /><br />>What do you think, yes or no: Do both the 289.9K and 290.1K reactors heat the 290K surface?<br /><br />The hotter surface is heating the colder reactor.<br /><br />Saying the cold reactor is also heating the hotter surface is false.<br /><br />Heat is not being exchanged via radiation.<br /><br />Heat and radiation are different energies<br /><br />When an object is heated it gets more energy from a source than it gives to the source<br /><br />Talking about two way exchange of warmth by radiation is scientifically invalid.<br /><br />And for the purposes of Wiki is is downright bizarre, that you people should think such an incorrect scientific view can be at all helpful to the reader who expensively heats his house because he *knows* the cold walls are not warming his house.Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59858743770156771992012-04-07T03:15:01.609-04:002012-04-07T03:15:01.609-04:00>>perhaps you would indulge me for a moment ...>>perhaps you would indulge me for a moment and explain whether you were referring to the weak northern winter sun or to the weak southern winter sun...?<br /><br />It does not matter.<br /><br />Water will freeze in weak winter sunlight.<br /><br />Without the greenhouse effect it would freeze more rapidlyAndrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54975980296489995282012-04-07T00:49:35.520-04:002012-04-07T00:49:35.520-04:00Andrew Judd said:
"For the temperature to ri...<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/04/mice-sinking-ship-etc.html?showComment=1333620815230#c3059339040009166239" rel="nofollow">Andrew Judd said</a>:<br /><br />"<i>For the temperature to rise, the Sun needs to be heating the surface at a higher rate than the surface is cooling. Weak winter sunshine only results in a reduction in the cooling rate of the surface.</i>"<br /><br />I responded to this yesterday, but my post seems to have evaporated…<br /><br />So, Andrew Judd, as you are enamoured of the idea of "poetry", perhaps you would indulge me for a moment and explain whether you were referring to the weak <i>northern</i> winter sun or to the weak <i>southern</i> winter sun...?<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55214365038158703202012-04-06T22:11:42.163-04:002012-04-06T22:11:42.163-04:00Andrew, you may have missed this in the kerfuffles...Andrew, you may have missed this in the kerfuffles.<br /><br />What do you think, yes or no: Do both the 289.9K and 290.1K reactors heat the 290K surface?Utahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986078408707187695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27137850115698212132012-04-06T16:01:48.482-04:002012-04-06T16:01:48.482-04:00Geoff
We are both getting a bit muddled here.
A ...Geoff<br /><br />We are both getting a bit muddled here.<br /><br />A thermocouple junction and the wires, generate a voltage and requires different temperatures along the wires.<br /><br />The Peltier effect is what happens when you apply a voltage to a thermocouple so that you produce a cooling force or mini fridge.<br /><br />If a wire carrries a current then a real wire has resistance and that creates heat, but the heat is not travelling along the wire with the electricity.<br /><br />So the thermocouple generates a voltage by cooling the hot end of the thermocouple - you cannot get something for nothing.<br /><br />This seems analogous to emission from a surface that cools a surface.<br /><br />In neither case is the energy in transit a quantity of heat or heat itself.<br /><br />What is measured is that heat reduces with emission and an equal amount of heat is created with absorption and we say that heat is transfered. No actual heat is transfered however. Energy was transferedAndrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43701332142112454022012-04-06T15:37:37.764-04:002012-04-06T15:37:37.764-04:00"Do you think heat can travel down an electri..."Do you think heat can travel down an electrical wire? Consider the peltier effect where a thermocouple junction cools and removes heat and creates electricity. Do you think the heat is travelling along the wire?"<br /><br />Perhaps we should set up an international bureacracy to make everyone comply with a single terminology? Just think of all those revised editions, the publishers would have a field day. To answer the above question,the wire carries a total energy current, an entropy current and related quantities such as 'heat flux' or 'thermal current' depending on the text.<br /><br />Less trivial, it helps to think of the effect as originating in the bulk of the two metals rather than being located at the junction, and that is without invoking any microscopic theory.<br /><br />By the way this system is not analagous to the one in radiation transfer because the electrons in the first system, unlike the photons in the second, are usually very close to thermodynamic equilibrium. This leads to useful tools such as temperature, voltage and a good <i>macroscopic</i> theory for this partially irreversible process.Geoff Wexlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73653723847481883112012-04-06T14:04:39.911-04:002012-04-06T14:04:39.911-04:00Rattus
So far, I could not get those videos to pl...Rattus<br /><br />So far, I could not get those videos to play. Hopefully I can get that sorted out and report back. <br /><br />However the correct expression is that the atmosphere causes the surface to warm. It is 'poetic' to say the atmosphere warms the surface.<br /><br />Most people here seem to prefer poetry rather than simple scientific explanationsAndrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9818222945724741732012-04-06T12:58:34.580-04:002012-04-06T12:58:34.580-04:00I don't want to get into who's warming who...I don't want to get into who's warming whom when both get hot, but I would seriously appreciate some data on IR wavelengths' mean free paths and how much these change for relevant changes in GHG concentrations. <br /><br />Thanks, <br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38887504340403831122012-04-06T10:59:42.319-04:002012-04-06T10:59:42.319-04:00I'm not sure I'll gain any more understand...I'm not sure I'll gain any more understanding of your position by continuing much longer so I'll let it go if you just answer one yes or no question. Do both the 289.9K and 290.1K reactors heat the 290K surface?Utahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986078408707187695noreply@blogger.com