Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#222 Oct 4, 2007
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
That's very funny. I do like that.
"Bill" tends to get a "user name already in use" message on some forums. I guess I forgot where I was.
So do I look younger without the moustache?
No, I think you just moved it between your eyebrows.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#223 Oct 5, 2007
Vince...what community do you live in, in Calgary?
Vince

Calgary, Canada

#224 Oct 5, 2007
Gord wrote:
Vince...what community do you live in, in Calgary?
Dover. And you?

-Vince

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#225 Oct 5, 2007
Vince wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely true. You can't get something from nothing.
Now you COULD increase the amount of energy stored ..... if the amount of release was stopped or decreased.(delta time).
And that's precisely what greenhouse gases do. Increase greenhouse gases and you reduce the rate of emission of energy escaping into space.
I think the mean temperature of any planet is determined entirely by its distance from the heat source.(inversely to the square of the distance)....... period. As long as re-radiation = input radiation the mean temperature will remain constant.
This is known not to be the case. Venus for example is far hotter than it should be given it's distance from the sun.
Earth has to radiate the same amount of heat it receives from the sun in order to stay at a constant mean temperature. Any kind of storage will result in a (small but) never-ending climb of temperature.
Not never ending. When greenhouse gases increase it causes more energy to be absorbed by the earth than emitted. That causes the temperature of Earth to climb as you mention, but this climb is not never-ending because as the Earth warms it emits more radiation, and eventually you get to a point again where the Earth is radiating the same amount of energy it recieves from the sun, except the Earth is now warmer.

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#226 Oct 5, 2007
Vince wrote:
A body can't warm itself by radiating heat and having the heat reflected back to itself.
Here are some examples, this figures are just for example:

A) Body is absorbing 200 Watts, and emitting 200 Watts.

200 IN
200 OUT
NET: 0

No net gain in energy.

B) Body is absorbing 200 Watts, and emitting 200 Watts. 50 Watts of energy emitted is reflected back at the body.

200 IN
200 OUT
50 IN (reflected)
NET:+50

Now if the body is absorbing 200 Watts and emitting 150 watts, it's gaining 50 watts. A temperature rise follows.
Case in point: Coffee in a thermostat is poured in at a set temperature. The shiny surface inside the bottle reflects heat and so the coffee stays hotter longer than it would if it were left inside of a non-reflective surface. The coffee, however never INCREASES its temperature because of the reflective surface.
This is a different situation, analogous to

0 IN
200 OUT
50 IN (reflected)
NET:-150

The reflected heat does provide energy to the coffee (50 watts), but the energy inbalance surpasses that because you are no longer heating the coffee. Reflecting the heat just means the cooling will be slower than if you didn't reflect the heat. In the case of Earth this is analogous to turning the sun off.

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#227 Oct 5, 2007
Gord wrote:
Well lets take those 2632 sheets and lay them out side by side in one big area. The CO2 is still 0.038% of the area.
The problem is that you are converting a 3D concentration into a 3D ratio of surface area. That cannot be done.

For example water makes up about 0.02% of Earth's total mass. But you can't use that figure to conclude water covers just 0.02% of Earth's surface.

You can't take that figure and calculate that if you fired an asteroid at the Earth it would almost definitely hit land and not water (0.02% chance of hitting water)

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#228 Oct 5, 2007
the above post should say "The problem is that you are converting a 3D concentration into a ***2D*** ratio of surface area"

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#229 Oct 5, 2007
Vince wrote:
Ha!
Reminds me of the Astronauts on the moon's surface ........
The sun was beating down upon them ......... the moon's surface was likely too hot to touch, and they were inside of heavy insulating suits. All around them, the surfaces were radiating heat, their bodies were producing heat inside of their suits and they would have died in short order without being able to cool themselves.
So how DID they manage to stay cool? They had no blackened radiator panels facing away from the sun, on their suits ..... no heat pumps to extract the heat, increase temperature and get rid of it via radiation.
It was a miracle. Proof positive that God exists!~
-Vince
Or
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit.h...

Most relevant part:
"To cope with the extremes of temperature, most spacesuits are heavily insulated with layers of fabric (Neoprene, Gore-Tex, Dacron) and covered with reflective outer layers (Mylar or white fabric) to reflect sunlight. The astronaut produces heat from his/her body, especially when doing strenuous activities. If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated; astronaut Eugene Cernan lost several pounds during his spacewalk on Gemini 9. To remove this excess heat, spacesuits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present."

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#230 Oct 5, 2007
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Cthulhu...you are really, really clueless.
Remember the the 100 watt bulb in the balloon?
Well the 100 watts that powered the bulb came from a 100 watt generator.
If we inked out the entire 10 m^2 area of the balloon (instead of the 1 m^2
area I used) would the bulb glow at 200 Watts?
You are an IDIOT!
If the ink "reflected" half the radiation back down towards then bulb then yes eventually it would. If the ink "reflected" all the radiation back down towards the bulb the bulb would eventually melt.
Vince

Calgary, Canada

#231 Oct 5, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
Or
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit.h...
Most relevant part:
"To cope with the extremes of temperature, most spacesuits are heavily insulated with layers of fabric (Neoprene, Gore-Tex, Dacron) and covered with reflective outer layers (Mylar or white fabric) to reflect sunlight. The astronaut produces heat from his/her body, especially when doing strenuous activities. If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated; astronaut Eugene Cernan lost several pounds during his spacewalk on Gemini 9. To remove this excess heat, spacesuits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present."
Yes. That's "nice" if an astronaut was walking on the earth's surface with an atmosphere.

How is heat extracted from a space suit interior and then "shed" ....... when there's no atmosphere to "blow" it into?

Remember, no atmosphere represents total vacuum. Total vacuum is a perfect insulator (insofar as conduction/convection goes)......... vacuum being the secret heat stopper for thermos bottles between the bottle surfaces.

So the astronauts are churning out heat inside of their suits and even if they can transfer that heat to the outside with liguid conductors .......... HOW is the heat transfered to the outside and to what?

Since radiation loss is the only way to shed heat in a vacuum, the loss must be greater than any gain. Since the sun is shining down on them, unimpeded ...... and the moon's surface has warmed up to over 100 degrees F already .......... and it's radiating them with infra-red heat ........ they have a "problem": they have to have some way of radiating MORE heat from their suits than they're receiving from the sun and surrounding surfaces. How was that done on the moon walks? Where were the radiators? What mechanism did they have to "jack" the temperature of extracted heat to increase radiation level and what sort of infra-red radiator where they using?

Since they apparently had NO radiator device and NO heat pumping system ....... they must have survived miraculously.

-Vince
Vince

Calgary, Canada

#232 Oct 5, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some examples, this figures are just for example:
A) Body is absorbing 200 Watts, and emitting 200 Watts.
200 IN
200 OUT
NET: 0
No net gain in energy.
B) Body is absorbing 200 Watts, and emitting 200 Watts. 50 Watts of energy emitted is reflected back at the body.
200 IN
200 OUT
50 IN (reflected)
NET:+50
Now if the body is absorbing 200 Watts and emitting 150 watts, it's gaining 50 watts. A temperature rise follows.
<quoted text>
This is a different situation, analogous to
0 IN
200 OUT
50 IN (reflected)
NET:-150
The reflected heat does provide energy to the coffee (50 watts), but the energy inbalance surpasses that because you are no longer heating the coffee. Reflecting the heat just means the cooling will be slower than if you didn't reflect the heat. In the case of Earth this is analogous to turning the sun off.
What you're ignoring or forgetting, however, is that the molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere were PART of the earth and REMAIN effective parts of the earth because of air currents continually rising, mixing with the molecules and TRANSFERRING heat AWAY from the molecules as a result. This is where you need to understand the heat-pump principle.

Air at the surface of the earth is the same temperature as the earth. As it rises, however, it expands and with the expansion comes a lowering of temperature and a spreading of molecules so that their heat value is effectively lowered.

50 molecules in a clump on the earth might contain 50 watts of heat.(silly example but just for convenience, let's use these numbers). They rise and spread far apart so that each molecule still retains one watt of heat each. NOW you have the earth radiating 200 watts of heat but only getting back one watt from the molecules. Instead of being re-radiated by 50 watts of heat, the earth is being radiated by on watt of heat.

Much like stars in the sky: if you gathered 100 stars together into one place, the light striking the earth would be brighter than if those stars were scattered. Anyone, anywhere on the face of the earth looking at that new "star" would see that it's brighter than any of the single stars composing it ..... had appeared earlier.

What you have then -with CO2 molecules in the atmosphere- is a lot of "chilled" molecules absorbing heat (and re-readiating far less from a base model) than a separate neutral body in space. The moving air is constantly drawing heat OUT of the surface of the earth in order to carry it aloft and then re-radiate back to earth.

-Vince
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#233 Oct 6, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
If the ink "reflected" half the radiation back down towards then bulb then yes eventually it would. If the ink "reflected" all the radiation back down towards the bulb the bulb would eventually melt.
Ha..Ha...you are really funny!

After all your talk about the 2nd and 1st law of Thermodynamics...you can't seem to grasp the idea of "Concervation of Energy" (the 1st law).

I will explain it to you...If you have a source of energy like a 100 watt generator powering a 100 watt light bulb. The energy released by the
100 watt light bulb cannot ever exceed the the power of the energy source...the 100 watt generator.

The light bulb may have some wattage loss ( watts = I^2 X R ...where I = current in amperes and R = resistance in ohms ) and it will emitt the
rest of the energy. If the I^2 X R equals 1 watt the the bulb will absorb 1 watt and emitt 99 watts into the surrounding atmosphere. If we
assume that the bulb is 100% efficient then 100 watts is emitted.

If the bulb is placed in a balloon that totally reflects or fully absorbes/re-radiates the the energy back at 100 watts/m^2, nothing really
changes as far a the light bulb is concerned...it just emitts 100 watts = 100 watts supplied by the generator. The electric field (the 100
watts/m^2) comming back toward the light bulb from the balloons surface is just like an isotropic radiator (that emitts energy equally in all directions) except now it emmits all the energy back towards a point in the center of the balloon. The radiated energy are Vectors having a
magnitude and a Direction. The magnitude is the same for each vector but the direction changes. When you sum vectors that have an equal
magnitude but opposing (180 degees) direction...the sum is ZERO. All the back radiation from the balloon's surface is Cancelled because all the vectors have a ZERO sum!

The 100 watts emitted by the bulb = the 100 watts supplied by the Generator...simple conservation of energy!

This concept is used all the time for ANTENNAS. Antennas are reciprocal devices...a transmitter antenna works exactly the same as a receiving
antenna. You probably have heard that most usefull antennas produces a GAIN. An isotropic antenna has a Gain = 1 because it radiates or
receives energy equally from all directions. To get a GAIN > 1, you have to modify the radiation pattern so that it concentrates radiated
energy in a particular direction. This is done by using reflectors/re-radiators in the antenna design. The reflectors/re-radiators are spaced
so that they direct the energy vectors so that they sum "in phase" in the direction of choice (the vectors all have the same Direction). The
resulting radiation pattern is now modified so that it receives/transmitts with a GAIN that is greater than 1 in a particular direction.

The paper "Falsification Of The Greenhouse Effect.." correctly pointed out that the AGW group did not use/understand Vectors and that it used analysis that contradicted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What the paper did not point out was that if Vector analysis is not used, or
improperly used, it will ultimately lead to a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy (ie. the 1st Law of Thermodynamics ).

To tell you the truth, I was at first hesitant to accept the claims made by the paper "Falsification Of The Greenhouse Effect..".
Now, I see that the claims were actually "understated"...the "science" used by the AGW cult is actually False and a Fraudulent!

They should be bannned from using the term SCIENCE in their papers and literature!
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#234 Oct 6, 2007
Cthulhu...another very good "real world" example where re-radiation is cancelled inside the Balloon is the RF cage.
RF means radio frequency. Most RF cages are just conductive screening around a room, but the ultimate RF cage is a sphere of conductive material.

There is no RF radiation inside the sphere because of field cancellation.

Lightning could strike the sphere and a person inside the sphere would never feel any effect!
Vince

Calgary, Canada

#235 Oct 6, 2007
Now, why doesn't a duck's quack echo? Same idea?

-Vince

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#236 Oct 6, 2007
Vince wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. That's "nice" if an astronaut was walking on the earth's surface with an atmosphere.
How is heat extracted from a space suit interior and then "shed" ....... when there's no atmosphere to "blow" it into?
Looks like they had water cooling suits, which caused the heat to be transfered to their backpacks where it was lost through radiation.

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#237 Oct 6, 2007
Vince wrote:
<quoted text>
What you're ignoring or forgetting, however, is that the molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere were PART of the earth and REMAIN effective parts of the earth because of air currents continually rising, mixing with the molecules and TRANSFERRING heat AWAY from the molecules as a result.
Makes little difference. The critical fact is that the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean a proportion of radiation from the Earth's surface is being "reflected" back. The presence of convection doesn't alter that fact.

This means the Earth is recieving more radiation (or losing less depending on how you look at it), than if these greenhouse gases didn't exist in the atmosphere, which of course means the planet will be warmer with than without greenhouse gases.

And again I point at Venus which if you apply thermodynamic calculations only taking into account the distance from the sun and solar radiation you will fall far short of explaining how hot it is.
50 molecules in a clump on the earth might contain 50 watts of heat.
Fall of temperature with height due to drop in pressure, and convection does not cancel out the greenhouse effect. The Earth still has to emit the same rate of energy into space that it is absorbing if it is to stay a constant temperature. Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause more of the outward earth radiation to be absorbed, and some to be reflected back. Effectively increasing greenhouse gases are reducing the rate of energy lost into space, and so it inhibits the cooling of the earth and it warms up.

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#238 Oct 6, 2007
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha..Ha...you are really funny!
After all your talk about the 2nd and 1st law of Thermodynamics...you can't seem to grasp the idea of "Concervation of Energy" (the 1st law).
I will explain it to you...If you have a source of energy like a 100 watt generator powering a 100 watt light bulb. The energy released by the
100 watt light bulb cannot ever exceed the the power of the energy source...the 100 watt generator.
A watt is a measure of energy per second.

Your bulb is not putting 100 units of energy out, it's putting 100 units of energy *per second*.

You have a constant flow of energy into the balloon system and you've set up your balloon system so that there is nowhere for it to go. It can be absorbed by the ink, reradiated and comes back, but it cannot actually get out of the balloon.

So quite obviously according to basic physics the amount of energy in the balloon must be building up over time. It cannot disapear that would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The build up of energy (eventually you will have 1 trillion joules of energy in the balloon for example) will take the form of increased temperature of the bulb, increased temperature of the ink, and increased radiation emitted by both.

That will mean the components of the balloon that can absorb radiation (the ink surface and the bulb) will get hotter and hotter and hotter infinitely.

So I stand firmly behind what I said previously - eventually the bulb would melt (assuming it's not a magical indestructable bulb)

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#239 Oct 6, 2007
Planet, Distance from Sun, Average Temperature

Mercury , 0.45 AU , 340K
Venus , 0.7 AU , 730K
Earth , 1 AU , 280 K
Mars , 1.5 AU , 230 K

Compare Venus and Mercury. Why is Venus so much hotter if it's further from the sun? I have a really good explaination involving the 1,700 billion billion tons of co2 in it's atmosphere.
Vince

Calgary, Canada

#240 Oct 6, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like they had water cooling suits, which caused the heat to be transfered to their backpacks where it was lost through radiation.
Where was the IR radiator on their backpacks? Remember, they needed to radiate MORE heat than they received from the sun and the moon's surface. In order to shed heat, their radiator had to be hotter than the surroundings, just like a fridge condensor has to be warmer than the room the fridge is in.

An IR radiator needs to be flat black in order to radiate heat.

-Vince

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#241 Oct 6, 2007
Vince wrote:
Where was the IR radiator on their backpacks?
It's not wise to jump on a moon landing conspiracy...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Kevin is Leery - CA 62,935
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 1 hr truth 7,994
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 2 hr Into The Night 74
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr Into The Night 10,728
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 4 hr Into The Night 1,228
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 hr Into The Night 35,849
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 4,817
More from around the web