<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still (Updated)</title>
		<description>Discuss No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still (Updated)</description>
		<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:49:29 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/185/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-510</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why are the "top of atmosphere radiation balance", Insolation is one quarter of Solar constant, the 255 K radiating temperature (which is the outgoing radiation's temperature and not the incoming Solar radiation's temperature), the atmosphere acts like a blanket insulating us from the "cold" of space, the atmospheric layer radiation model with actual equations, ignoring the tiny quantities of mass of GHGs (CO2 at 0.06 % by weight is only 0.732 grams of the 1.205 kg of air in a cubic metre at sea level), ignoring the period of rotation which is the major factor in keeping the Earth warm (you only have to look at the Moon to see that is true) and all the other nonsense that is taught as climate science why is it that this is actually what is taught in Universities and is actually the only "science" taught by Academic Institutions anywhere on the net if it is indeed, as you say, incorrect ???]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:14:33 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-510</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-509</link>
			<description><![CDATA["GH gases slow down the energy loss rate of the Earth's surface (by returning some of the longwave radiation via backradiation) without significantly affecting the energy input mechanism" This statement is demonstrably false by simply studying well documented data. Cooling rates in the atmosphere are significantly faster than the cooling rate of a heated surface radiating to space and there is hard data to support this. The Moon cools from ~390 K at noon to about 220 K at sunset. This is a temperature loss of ~ 170 K in 170 Earth hours - remember a lunar day is 708 Earth hours long. This is the fastest cooling rate the Moon exhibits - about 1 K per Earth hour. Once the Sun sets the lower temperatures naturally radiate at a lower rate so that it takes a further 340 Earth hours for the temperature to drop another 120 K. I can place near boiling water - not too different from the lunar day time temperature - in my freezer and have ice within 8 - 10 hours. The conduction and convection of the atmosphere cool at a rate that is at least 9 times that found on the Moon. This BS that the atmosphere somehow hinders cooling of the Earth's surfaces is simply wrong and proven so !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:57:17 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-509</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-507</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I should prove my assertion that they are wrong. Using Kiehl & Trenberth's insolation of 342 W/sq metre and albedo of 0.31 we have - 1 - 0.31 = 0.69 - albedo adjustment. 34. x 0.69 = 235.98 W/sq metre 235.98 = sigma x T^4 - Stefan-Boltzmann. T = 254 K 254/255 = 1 1^4 = 1 - oops where did the original four factor go ? I could calculate temperatures and obtain the ratio and raise this ratio to the fourth power and obtain 4 but using climate experts figures I can't ! I know the four is there because they quarter the insolation originally but this is wrong. If their method of calculating temperatures is correct they need to be able to recalculate the geometry proportion of 4 by raising the ratio of the calculated temperatures to the fourth power. Their method fails analysis. It cannot reproduce their original energy balance constant of proportionality - 4. It has to be able to do this or their method is simply wrong - mathematical procedures must be reversible or they are wrong !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:03:24 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-507</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-506</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Of course you are right ! If you look at the basic "top of atmosphere energy balance" equations taught as the fundamental basis of the greenhouse effect you have to be "on the ball" to spot the sleight of hand trick but if you say it aloud and apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law appropriately (forgetting the emissivity issue) you see the result is bogus. Here's how I see it. At TOA:- Energy in uniformly over a disk shape = Energy out over a sphere. (Their claim and I do not necessarily agree as there is a significant conversion of energy to mass which is never discussed.) They immediately introduce the effective temperature and calculate it by reducing insolation by four. But if you think clearly this is not the maximum temperature under the noonday Sun - it is simply the temperature required to balance the energy input to output considering the geometry. Calculate the maximum temperature the full albedo adjusted insolation can cause and you find ~957 W/sq metre and the associated temperature of ~360 K. Calculate the "effective temperature" the standard way and you find ~239 W/sq metre and the associated temperature of ~255 K. The ratio of temperatures 360/255 is 1.4117647 .... This is the fourth root of 4 thus establishing the correct initial geometry of the hypothesis - ie heat a sphere over its disk profile uniformly and the sphere radiates uniformly at one quarter of the power flux. I don't think this is a good model anyway but I think I have established they are wrong to assert that insolation is one quarter of the Solar constant. If you assume they are right and the insolation is one quarter - (how does THAT work when the insolation is exclusively during the day and how does the other 3 quarters know it is excluded ?) - and apply their figures - eg Kiehl & Trenberth - in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation you find there is insufficient energy to produce a temperature that establishes their own original hypothetical equations and completely fails to reproduce the proportionality constant of 4 the ratio of area of a sphere to a disk. The only logical analysis to this is their methodology is wrong. If their simple model is wrong the more complex computer equations are garbage!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:36:33 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-506</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-505</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Has anyone actually documented that when a cloud passes overhead the atmosphere below it actually increases in temperature ?? Until I see verifiable documented proof I will not believe it !! There are alternate explanations. Let us never forget Planck and all of the other pioneers of radiation physics - be their results right or wrong - never failed to remember one basic tenet of REAL science - :- It is the temperature that causes the radiation - the higher the greater ! As for an alternate explanation how about this ? Even though greatly reduced during the night there is always thermal conduction and convection occurring in the atmosphere and the surface temperature is always higher and the density is always higher than that of the upper atmosphere - Ok temperature inversions do occur but to my knowledge they have little to do with radiation. Along comes a cloud and its mass disturbs the convection paths, suppressing the transfer of heat and it is this which causes the illusion of increasing temperature. Unless there is hard verifiable empirical evidence that this explanation is wrong I choose it. There can be no doubt that the shading that clouds create during the day reduces the heating potential of the Solar radiation - no sane person can deny that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:07:27 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-505</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-504</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was simply using well known proven physical properties for CO2 - the Engineering Toolbox. It takes less energy to raise the temperature of CO2 than it does for normal air - specific heats of 0.844 kJ/kg.K for CO2 versus 1.01 kJ/kg K for normal air. CO2 has a thermal conductivity of 0.0146 W/m.K versus air with a thermal conductivity of 0.024 W/m.K - thus air is almost 60 % more "efficient" at conducting heat than CO2 - despite air being an extremely efficient insulator itself providing convection is suppressed - hence the effectiveness of double glazing. So supply a kJ to a kg of air and CO2 and the CO2 will heat up more than the air by a factor of 1.01/0.844 or almost 1.2 K for CO2 versus 1 K for air. Subsequently the air will conduct heat away at a faster rate than CO2 - a rate difference of about 1.64 in favour of air. This confirms what all the clowns demonstrate with their "CO2 traps heat" experiments like the one on Mythbusters. What they have demonstrated is that well known physics is right. The CO2 eventually returns to ambient temperature ! What they fail to realise is that these experiments/demonstrations have nothing to do with "trapping" radiation but are explained by the thermal properties shown !! Further, with the very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect on the physics of the situation is negligible - remember 0.06 % by weight or 0.732 grams CO2 per cubic metre at ground level - even less at the "magic ceiling" height where GHGs act like a radiating surface "back-radiating" infra-red at more than double the insolation if you believe the IPCC ! How is it possible that 0.732 grams of CO2 per cubic metre could "back-radiate" any significant energy ?? Remember thermal conductivity is determined by experiment and unless the scientists can stop the CO2 radiating infra-red during the experiment CO2 has no powerful radiative effect at all - else it would show up in the energy transfer rate test that is thermal conductivity !!! Also thermal conductivity is determined at far higher temperatures than the "radiating temperature" of the Earth so any effect from CO2 should be even more obvious ! It is so funny that they claim to have established "trapping radiation" without thermally isolating the test apparatus to exclude conduction to, and convection in the surrounding atmosphere. That people are blindly accept that this proves that "trapping radiation" is possible without bothering to investigate any other possible explanations simply proves the old adage once ascribed to a famous Circus proprietor - "There's one born every minute" ! All of my reasoning may be completely wrong and if so I will appreciate the opportunity to learn !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:17:36 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-504</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-503</link>
			<description><![CDATA[More than 45 % of the Solar radiation is actually infra red ! Significant proportions of this infra-red is absorbed by water vapour in the atmosphere. Admittedly the Earth's weak and cool infra-red emissions are much longer wavelengths than the Solar radiation and that there is little overlap but the fact remains that almost half of the Solar radiation is actually not in the visible spectrum at all but infra-red. This is another of the wrong assertions of climate science. Even Wikipedia, an alarmist controlled organisation, present the correct data in their Solar spectrum graphs confirming this statement !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:37:23 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-503</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>John OSullivan says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-502</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree with almost all your points except that CO2 isn't a good insulator. On the contrary, it is proven to be one of nature's remarkably efficient coolants. Check this out: http://climaterealists.com/?id=10321]]></description>
			<dc:creator>John OSullivan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:21:27 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-502</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pierre R Latour says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-501</link>
			<description><![CDATA[GHG Theory Constitutes a PPM Greenhouse gas theory postulates significant back-radiation from cooler atmospheric CO2 molecules absorbed by warmer Earth’s surface, driving global warming. Using Dr Roy Spencer’s hot bar analogy, which he used to support the theory that cool radiators heat hot radiators even more, I wrote the energy balance = input rate – output rate and proved the change in energy rate to the bar’s surroundings is Es = [(1 + k)*K*F0 + (1 + K)*k*f0]/(1 - kK) - K*F0. K is absorptivity, the fraction of radiation from the first bar absorbed by the second colder bar, 0 < K 0 and k > 0, Es > 0 (because the first term > K*F0). This would constitute creation of energy, a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Since K may be > 0, Es = 0 if and only if k = 0 (because first term = K*F0). Since this is the only possible solution, k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed. If back-radiation exists, k > 0, a violation of the Second Law of thermodynamics, then Es > 0, which would constitute a perpetual motion machine of the first kind creating energy. No such mechanism exists in nature. Therefore any Greenhouse gas theory employing back-radiation must be false. QED.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pierre R Latour</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:51:34 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-501</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rosco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-500</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Can a cooler body slow the cooling of a warmer body via "back radiation"." Consider blackbody curves for radiation for 2 bodies - one hot and one much colder. At equilibrium both bodies will have the same curve which is somewhere in the middle of the original curves. Secondly the cooler body's curve will initially be wholly contained within the hotter bodies curve. As the cooler body warms its curve will "rise" whilst the hotter body will lower. There can be no logical mechanism whereby the radiation from the cooler body will increase the temperature of the hotter body - it is already way above the energy level being emitted by the cold body and falling to a mid point that each achieves - it defies scientific logic. The area under the curve of the cooler one is far less than the hotter one - you simply can't add them together - it doesn't work that way and science knows it If "back radiation" is possible then so is "back conduction" as all things radiate continuously ! But we all know you do not put an ice cube into your drink to warm it up. The "net" flow of heat is a BS concept - if the "net" flow is from hot to cold then any potential warming effect of the so-called "back radiation" is already swamped by the greater energy flow from hot to cold. CO2, having no remarkable thermal properties such as latent heat at ambient temperatures - is nothing more that a slightly better insulator than normal air. But with less than 1 gram per cubic metre CO2 is being credited with magical properties it simply does not possess. There are so many things wrong with AGW "science" but there is hard data it is wrong. Temperatures on the Moon show that the Sun can heat the Earth to much more than the BS minus 18 degrees C. The Moon data also proves cooling by radiative processes alone is a slow process. The Moon would never cool to the same low temperatures in 24 hours that it does in 354 hours. Climate science ignores the period of rotation in favour of bogus calculations.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rosco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:34:06 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still#comment-500</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
