Air is a great insulator (ie, conduction is very weak). The lacquer coating, otoh, essentially extends the balls volume to the new surface. An atmosphere does not conduct heat as does lacquer.
Eg, windows that have two glass sheets with air in the middle (despite each face radiating) insulate much better than a thick slab of glass. You can observe a similar phenomenon with any form of insulation (good ones tend to be puffy material full of air).
@hozelda Thanks for the serious questions . I believe CO2 absorbs its peak wavelengths within 100m of the ground directly conducting its heat to ( and at night - from ) the other molecules around it , Macro scale conduction is minimal , but convection can be tornadic . I have never seen any computation is the massive reduction in the diurnal variance in our temperature .
My crude experiment is in reaction to the lack of ANY by "climate scientists" .
1: What would you say is an experiment on climate? How do you think weather forecasts work if we didn't understand enough of the atmosphere and oceans? Experiments conducted in past are why we believe certain equations apply.
2: Doubling CO2 concentration should lower that 100m, perhaps to near 50m, do you agree? Would you agree as well that this will mean higher temps?
3: Can you clarify, "any computation is the massive reduction in the diurnal variance in our temperature"
@hozelda 1 : It's a low tek experiment in 19th century physics . It should be done properly in a vacuum chamber with measured spectra
2 :. It's logarithmic -- Beer's law .
3 : Oops . should be "any computation of the ..." . Here at 2500m altitude the temperature commonly varies 20c overnight ; at sea level commonly less than half that . CO2 plays some role in transferring heat > < the rest of the atmosphere . This should be quantifiable .
1: Can you clarify which 19th cent experiment and suggest how if such fundamentals in knowledge are lacking are we able to do weather forecasts?
2: logarithmic wrt (absorption * path length). Absorption varies directly with concentration. So 2X concentration should 2X absorption, implying 1/2X of path length would result in same effect. Now, it won't be 1/2 because CO2 is not the only ghg. I suppose maybe from 100 -> 80 or 90 or (?)
@hozelda Sounds right . I want to nail down the equilibrium temperatures for any specific spectra before getting into analysis of translucent media . See my CoSy . com/views/warm.htm . I'm working on a more public essential physics page which isn't ready to mention yet . If you're a programmer , I'll be seeking translations of the algorithms to more common languages than the APL I think in .
3: I agree that we should be able to quantify the transfer of heat to atmosphere (at least to first degree). I don't know enough to know if we have/haven't achieved those computations. [I've become fairly interested of late in just this question.]
I will try to find time to look at the webpage you mentioned, but I want to mention a few things that came to mind.
Assuming all radiation from earth that can be caught by CO2 is caught already, the greenhouse effect is stronger if it is caught lower to the ground (as it would as concentrations increase). This is because back radiation will be greater.. essentially, more energy will be stored in the atmosphere at any given point in time.
Convection cools all the ping pong balls significantly.
Terrible presentation. You haven't made clear your hypotheses, and what it is you are trying to prove. You make zero comment on how your experiment here relates to real-world large-scale systems.
Anyway, we still need radical laws to reduce CO2 emissions and to end torture: outlaw coal, meat, and human breeding (overpopulation).
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is still proven fact.
@mphello Never had the time to clean it up . This is just the last third of the video I recorded . But it gets across the essential point that however light or dark a radiantly heated gray ball does not effect its temperature . See cosy.com/views/warm.htm . And since CO2 is the building block of life , why lump it with all the other things , including human life itself , you hate ?
The thing that most people seem to be missing is that a black object is certainly going to be hottest when most cooling happens via conduction or convection. The different objects will only have the same equivalence temperatures in vacuum where the heat can escape only by radiation.
I have a better experiment, try filling one plastic bottle with 2010 levels of CO2 and one with 1850 level's. Place in the sun on a cloudless day for 6 hours recording the temp, every 10 minutes. When I did this I found a difference in temp with the 2010 co2 leveled bottle being warmer than the 1850's CO2 level bottle. Can you explain this?
@checkyoursources ; I'd like to see the video . How did you fill a bottle with less than the ambient ppm of CO2 . Can you give a link to your temperature records ? See my CoSy.com for the computations which I would expect to quantitatively predict the difference in temperatures . I see a comment on your channel that implies you are a BSer . Can you disprove that allegation ?
@CoSyBob I would ask yourself a question: On what evidence is the allegation made?
If there is no evidence then the allegation is unlikely to be correct.
If you don't think my experiment gave the result I indicated, then do what a good scientist does, repeat the experiment yourself. I will be putting up a video soon with my results for yiur analysis. The most difficult issue was getting the correct level of CO2 but I started with a vacuum and a CO2 sensor and gradually added it.
@Niightversionn You keep mentioning my research. But that's down to the climatologists, not atmospheric scientists. Do you not know the difference?
LOL
Climatology is defined as "The science that deals with climates and their phenomena." Climatologists also falls under the title of atmospheric scientistsClimatology is a branch in atmosphere sciences;
I would think a parabolic mirror would make heat go up hill. I pitty the airplane that flies over the beam, however. Perhaps there could be no-fly zones for the heat beams.
@morpher44 ; a parabolic mirror concentrates radiant heat from a large area into a small cone . Regions outside that cone have less heat than they would otherwise . The total remains constant . It's not the same as claiming the interior of a sphere can be made to maintain a temperature higher than that calculated for its surface .
Aw, you have to be crazy. Did you see the big lebowski? That is where he sounds most like you. If i were you i would be happy, jeff bridges has a really cool voice.
This all makes perfect sense. The white ball allows quite a bit of heat to penetrate the inside of the ball. The black less. The silver is reflecting it. Ever walk on a blacktop road barefoot and see a white spot? That's the spot that's least hot. Also if you want and can't find a formula for something, what's wrong with just figuring it out yourself?
How well does lacquer mimic the atmosphere?
Air is a great insulator (ie, conduction is very weak). The lacquer coating, otoh, essentially extends the balls volume to the new surface. An atmosphere does not conduct heat as does lacquer.
Eg, windows that have two glass sheets with air in the middle (despite each face radiating) insulate much better than a thick slab of glass. You can observe a similar phenomenon with any form of insulation (good ones tend to be puffy material full of air).
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda Thanks for the serious questions . I believe CO2 absorbs its peak wavelengths within 100m of the ground directly conducting its heat to ( and at night - from ) the other molecules around it , Macro scale conduction is minimal , but convection can be tornadic . I have never seen any computation is the massive reduction in the diurnal variance in our temperature .
My crude experiment is in reaction to the lack of ANY by "climate scientists" .
The main point of my experiment
CoSyBob 2 months ago
@CoSyBob
1: What would you say is an experiment on climate? How do you think weather forecasts work if we didn't understand enough of the atmosphere and oceans? Experiments conducted in past are why we believe certain equations apply.
2: Doubling CO2 concentration should lower that 100m, perhaps to near 50m, do you agree? Would you agree as well that this will mean higher temps?
3: Can you clarify, "any computation is the massive reduction in the diurnal variance in our temperature"
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda 1 : It's a low tek experiment in 19th century physics . It should be done properly in a vacuum chamber with measured spectra
2 :. It's logarithmic -- Beer's law .
3 : Oops . should be "any computation of the ..." . Here at 2500m altitude the temperature commonly varies 20c overnight ; at sea level commonly less than half that . CO2 plays some role in transferring heat > < the rest of the atmosphere . This should be quantifiable .
CoSyBob 2 months ago
@CoSyBob
1: Can you clarify which 19th cent experiment and suggest how if such fundamentals in knowledge are lacking are we able to do weather forecasts?
2: logarithmic wrt (absorption * path length). Absorption varies directly with concentration. So 2X concentration should 2X absorption, implying 1/2X of path length would result in same effect. Now, it won't be 1/2 because CO2 is not the only ghg. I suppose maybe from 100 -> 80 or 90 or (?)
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda Sounds right . I want to nail down the equilibrium temperatures for any specific spectra before getting into analysis of translucent media . See my CoSy . com/views/warm.htm . I'm working on a more public essential physics page which isn't ready to mention yet . If you're a programmer , I'll be seeking translations of the algorithms to more common languages than the APL I think in .
CoSyBob 2 months ago
@CoSyBob
3: I agree that we should be able to quantify the transfer of heat to atmosphere (at least to first degree). I don't know enough to know if we have/haven't achieved those computations. [I've become fairly interested of late in just this question.]
hozelda 2 months ago
I will try to find time to look at the webpage you mentioned, but I want to mention a few things that came to mind.
Assuming all radiation from earth that can be caught by CO2 is caught already, the greenhouse effect is stronger if it is caught lower to the ground (as it would as concentrations increase). This is because back radiation will be greater.. essentially, more energy will be stored in the atmosphere at any given point in time.
Convection cools all the ping pong balls significantly.
hozelda 2 months ago
Terrible presentation. You haven't made clear your hypotheses, and what it is you are trying to prove. You make zero comment on how your experiment here relates to real-world large-scale systems.
Anyway, we still need radical laws to reduce CO2 emissions and to end torture: outlaw coal, meat, and human breeding (overpopulation).
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is still proven fact.
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello Never had the time to clean it up . This is just the last third of the video I recorded . But it gets across the essential point that however light or dark a radiantly heated gray ball does not effect its temperature . See cosy.com/views/warm.htm . And since CO2 is the building block of life , why lump it with all the other things , including human life itself , you hate ?
CoSyBob 3 months ago
The thing that most people seem to be missing is that a black object is certainly going to be hottest when most cooling happens via conduction or convection. The different objects will only have the same equivalence temperatures in vacuum where the heat can escape only by radiation.
Tronic358 1 year ago
@Tronic358
Interesting question . Certainly cond & conv are more complicated . I'd like to see some experimental results .
CoSyBob 1 year ago
I have a better experiment, try filling one plastic bottle with 2010 levels of CO2 and one with 1850 level's. Place in the sun on a cloudless day for 6 hours recording the temp, every 10 minutes. When I did this I found a difference in temp with the 2010 co2 leveled bottle being warmer than the 1850's CO2 level bottle. Can you explain this?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources ; I'd like to see the video . How did you fill a bottle with less than the ambient ppm of CO2 . Can you give a link to your temperature records ? See my CoSy.com for the computations which I would expect to quantitatively predict the difference in temperatures . I see a comment on your channel that implies you are a BSer . Can you disprove that allegation ?
CoSyBob 1 year ago
@CoSyBob I would ask yourself a question: On what evidence is the allegation made?
If there is no evidence then the allegation is unlikely to be correct.
If you don't think my experiment gave the result I indicated, then do what a good scientist does, repeat the experiment yourself. I will be putting up a video soon with my results for yiur analysis. The most difficult issue was getting the correct level of CO2 but I started with a vacuum and a CO2 sensor and gradually added it.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources . Excellent . I look forward to your video . Can you present a quantitative physical explanation of your findings ?
CoSyBob 1 year ago
@CoSyBob of course, I suggest you do the experiment too :)
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Hi do you know this creep?
MarkNobes
5 days ago
@tingtingy I have a PhD in atmospheric science
• MarkNobes
53 minutes ago
@Niightversionn You keep mentioning my research. But that's down to the climatologists, not atmospheric scientists. Do you not know the difference?
LOL
Climatology is defined as "The science that deals with climates and their phenomena." Climatologists also falls under the title of atmospheric scientistsClimatology is a branch in atmosphere sciences;
Dayversion 1 year ago
I would think a parabolic mirror would make heat go up hill. I pitty the airplane that flies over the beam, however. Perhaps there could be no-fly zones for the heat beams.
morpher44 1 year ago
@morpher44 ; a parabolic mirror concentrates radiant heat from a large area into a small cone . Regions outside that cone have less heat than they would otherwise . The total remains constant . It's not the same as claiming the interior of a sphere can be made to maintain a temperature higher than that calculated for its surface .
CoSyBob 1 year ago
o thats cause global warming is not a problem
Teddy015 3 years ago
Sounds more like Cheech Marin narrating.
OutaSynch 3 years ago 2
Did Jeff Bridges make this video?
mortson978 3 years ago
I keep watching Jeff Bridges movies because everybody says I sound like him . Doesn't sound that close to me .
CoSyBob 3 years ago
Aw, you have to be crazy. Did you see the big lebowski? That is where he sounds most like you. If i were you i would be happy, jeff bridges has a really cool voice.
mortson978 3 years ago
By the way thanks for helping to disprove the global warming hysterics. Ill bet if you tried you could do a perfect lebowski impression.
mortson978 3 years ago
This all makes perfect sense. The white ball allows quite a bit of heat to penetrate the inside of the ball. The black less. The silver is reflecting it. Ever walk on a blacktop road barefoot and see a white spot? That's the spot that's least hot. Also if you want and can't find a formula for something, what's wrong with just figuring it out yourself?
dickenine 4 years ago
RichardTrekkerTheII has a great video that addresses this issue as sensibly as any that I've seen.
dickenine 4 years ago