Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is a Watt???
#41
Hi All,
I have been continuing my discussions in regard of is a Watt timeless,
I am reasonably sure it is, so I have put together the below.

[Image: Wattistimeless.jpg]
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.
Reply
#42
Given
Joule = Watt per second

and,
Watt = Joule per second

then, is it correct to say,
Watt (AMOUNT) is equivalent to, but not the same as, Watt per second (RATE),

and,
Joule (AMOUNT) is equivalent to, but not the same as, Joule per second (RATE).

Therefore, neither a Watt or a Joule contain time, UNTIL TIME IS ADDED TO THE AMOUNT, then,
when time is added, they are converted from a simple amount, to an amount over time, or a rate, or a pressure, or a power figure, whichever you prefer.

and that,
A W/m2 CAN ONLY BE a power figure for a gray body.
It is for a black body too, but because of the black body stated assumptions, in that imaginary case,
ie a black body is a 100% efficient absorber and emitter that acts instantaneously, and,
the mathematical "quirk" that any number times 1 remains the same,

a W/m2 can substitute to describe the flow amount.
But not for a gray body obviously.....
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.
Reply
#43
Ok, to take the above a bit further, if it isn't far enough already...

The K&T plot previously posted on this thread, is, as already explained, ALL in black body.
ie, the various parts are separate black bodies.
In the real (gray body) world these figures would have to be different, and lower, but
they are supposedly measured as depicted, or very close to as depicted?
This is why it is often said that in effect the earth, or the atmosphere can be considered
to be acting as if it were a black body, particularly by the AGW "consensus" and it's supporters / believers.

This is very strange, in that, the gray body measurements are the same as the black bodies "theory",
and that it has not been realised that they must therefore disprove the black body explained "theory".
But does it show more? I think it could.
If the gray bodies are measured radiating more, or rather at a greater power than they should be,
according to the black body explanations of K&T, and GH, then,
there is more energy, and at a greater power, in the system than can be accounted for by
the presently dominant paradigm/s, ie, GH, and AGW (K&T plots).

I have often said that once geothermal inputs are taken into account large holes in the present climate system "explanations" will be found.
The measured too large gray body figures are at least some of these holes.

There is also the cold of precipitation to be added, this is the biggest hole on it's own.
This can only make the discrepancies even bigger, as
at present it appears the sign has been flipped from negative to positive,
in effect the cold of precipitation (cooling mostly) has been renamed as (warming) "back radiation".

Furthermore, as I have been trying to illustrate on this thread,
once the amounts of the flows, at the power they are emitted at, is taken into account, then also the discrepancies will further grow.
In the end, it seems patently clear to me that the black body explanations of AGW and GH
will be left with an enormous hole/s in gray body reality.

So, it appears there is much more energy, and at a greater power, in earth's climate system than the present black body "theories" of GH and AGW can explain.
How can a gray body radiate more, or nearly as much as, a black body for the same input?
It can not. Not with only the same energy source.

So, earth must have more than one source of energy for it to be able to radiate within the climate system and from the climate system,
to anywhere near the level of a black body receiving the known solar input.

May I suggest the blitheringly obvious
- Earth MUST have at least two energy sources of significance,
1) the sun and,
2) the planet's own hot core.

How else could we measure what we measure?

We just need understand the physics involved better,
what the units used actually mean a lot better,
avoid unknowingly using imaginary black bodies all over the place,
and then,
we might be able to start looking at all things climate science related a little differently...
ie, Much more REALISTICALLY....

Note to self - do not forget to add / post there is no such thing as thermal equilibrium in gray body reality,
it is another black body imaginary "notion"...
Things expand and contract as they heat up and cool down.
- Therefore work done in size for temperature thing is at - it's a constant temperature related work / drain.
So, in can not equal out because of (constant) work of expansion of anything above absolute zero...
Eiffel Tower summer is 6 inches taller than winter, on average - that's a lot of work...
Thermodynamics maybe too complicated BUT that is the answer,
NOT the black body notion of in = out. Not in gray body reality.
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.
Reply
#44
Hi All,
It is with what I can only describe as extreme annonance that "elsewhere" I am seeing another group discuss EXACTLY what I am describing on this thread, but in another "style".
No credit or reference has been given to me in those discussions.......Angry

So, I will continue here ONLY. I will not contribute to the group discussions I mention, that started after I posted on this thread, AND sent a link to this thread to that group...
Incidentally, that is not the first time that has happened to me or to what I have also suggested, and on several occasions now, previously within that group.

Anyway, I will continue.
It is often said that space is cold, but is it??? AND, what has that got to do with this thread?
Well, let us see if our "new" understanding of what a W/m2 for a black and a gray body means can help answer that question.
If we remember for a black body, because of the 1, and instant assumptions, then a W/m2 can substitute / describe an energy flow for a black body,
but, for a gray body because it is not instantaneous, nor 100% efficient, then a W/m2 in reality (ie, for gray bodies) can only describe the power of that flow. Amount is missing.

It is commonly stated that the earth recieves 1378 W/m2 from the sun at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).
This is an average, it is not a constant. Firstly the sun is variable (sunspots...) AND,
the earth's orbit around the sun IS elipitical. So, the distance and therefore the power of sunlight recieved is constantly varying because of the inverse square law.
If I remember correctly when I did the beach balll / pea simile, then the pea (earth) moves backward and forward from the goal line 1.4 meters during it's annual orbit of the sun.
That will alter the W/m2 received at the TOA.
So, given all Greenhouse Effect "theory" (failed hypothesis actually) and Anthropogenic Global Warming "explanations" are based upon in = out or else BOOOM, then,
using a "constant" (divided by 4...) that is NOT a "constant", IT IS AN AVERAGE, is, well, a bit of a problem for the above mentioned failed hypothesises....

All that said, there is a bigger issue, BECAUSE OF THE INCORRECT USE OF W/m2, that is relevant to this thread.

The sun is a gray body at a certain temperature (which varies no doubt - but it is damned hot...) so, after emissivity is taken into account, it will emit thermal IR at a certain power.
This will be THE POWER of solar emission, but it will not include amount, because of the use of W/m2 to describe a gray body emission.
At TOA it appears that, "on average" earth receives what it should do according to the inverse square law (ie, reduces with increasing circumference of circle of emissions from source).
BUT, this is only THE POWER of what is received at TOA, amount (at that power) is NOT DESCRIBED.

Some have argued that because earth (apparently) recieves what it should from the sun according to the inverse square law,
then this shows that nothing was lost inbetween the sun and earth.
This is taken to mean that the sun's emissions effected nothing inbetween (ie, nothing was lost from the beam), so, space IS temperature neutral.
That space has no temperature, because how can nothing have a temperature, is perfectly reasonable to myself.
Things can get very, very cold in space as they cool unhindered in nothing,
but that does not mean space is cold.
In fact, it points to, that space IS temperature neutral.

Unfortunately as amount is missing in a W/m2 for a gray body, then, just because the expected POWER of emissions is received at TOA,
that DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN that the right AMOUNT, at the right POWER is received.
The power received is not of itself proof that nothing was lost or used between the sun and earth,
a W/m2 "on average" measurement, is only, and at best, an indication that that maybe the case.
IF we also measured amount, then we might have something nearer an appropriate answer to the question is space cold.

Yet again the above is an example of "us" applying black body willy nilly without realising it,
and jumping to possibly far more that what it actually tells "us", or simply incorrect conclusions.
The basis for any conclusions from such figures is certainly "questionable" for gray bodies....

In the end, to the best of my understanding, space IS temperature neutral, because, how can nothing have a temperature???

But, the W/m2 received at TOA is NOT PROOF that space is either cold or temperature neutral, as some have suggested, because,
the amount emitted (by the sun) and received (by earth at TOA) is missing in W/m2 measurments / figures for a gray body.
We simply do not know, nor can answer the question this way, because we do not measure amount.
This is due to the fact that a W/m2 for a gray body, IS A POWER FIGURE ONLY.


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.
Reply
#45
I think I have "it".
Watt = Joule per second.
and
Joule = Watt per second.

Equivalent to, NOT the same as (in all respects).
That is the first "step".

The above could be rewritten as,
Watt = Watt per second.
Or,
Joule = Joule per second.

Therefore
Niether unit has time in it, UNTILL you add it.
That is the second "step".

Then one realises that the mathematical "quirk" of an number times one is the same, means,
in the case of a Watt that you have converted an amount to a flow, but assumed instantly and 100% efficiency, ie, by adding "per second".
Therefore it is a Black body assumption to convert amount (Watt) to rate (Watt per second) in this way, ie, using "per second", or 1.
That is the third "step".

I will leave others to worry over what "per" or "times" with regard to the use in Watt per or times second/s. means - it is just a way to bullshit.

Also due to work of expansion and contraction, there is no such thing as an IR ONLY thermal equilibrium.
I have already shown that is impossible with open water and an atmosphere because of latent heat losses,
the water will always be colder. Driven by relative humidity in a gravity field.

A m2 in black body is always a m2, regardless of temperature......That is a physical impossibility, it can only be imaginary.
It is another black body explanation that can not possibly apply in gray body reality.
It is also "step 4", so "justifying" In = Out or else BOOOOM.

The above means ALL of AGW, ie K&T, and GH is explained in Black body, and so,
AGW and GH has been proven to be imaginary.

That the "predicted" (black body) power figures of K&T, AGW, and GH have been measured in gray body reality disproves AGW and GH.
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.
Reply
#46
It is time to call..

From HERE

Derek says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 14, 2011 at 11:54 am

Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because
climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability
”.

Hmmm, funny, I thought “they” had natural variability pinned down, and man’s influence was catastrophically bigger……
Perhaps, “they” are wrong, perhaps “man made Global Warming” (as predicted) could only happen in an imaginary “reality”..

How though, could such be pulled off????

We all know,
Watt = Joule per second.
and,
Joule = Watt per second.
BUT, do “we” know what that really means………..ie, Black body “reality”..
Page 3, in particular, onwards..
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...-1071.html

Dam, we did not…

Do you feel a bit silly. Really, do you???
If not, please show (easily and understandably) where I am wrong,
in my reasoning and conclusions.
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.
Reply
#47
I have not really recieved a response or rebuttal anywhere yet to what I am describing in this thread in relation to what a W/m2 actually means.

Maybe my explanations to date have not been good enough, so I have tried "elsewhere" again..
I think it worth repeating here.

Everyone seems to assume a Watt has a hidden time term
for a second in it.
I have been told in no uncertain terms that a Watt DOES have a hidden time term
of a second in it.
I beg to differ, as I will try to explain below.

I have looked at the SI website, there it describes a Watt as a derived unit,

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
it is NOT one of the 7 base unit all other units are made up from.

Therefore, a Watt is a derived unit. It is a unit of two parts.
An amount of energy, or ability to do an amount of work, that is averaged over
an amount of time.
Conventionally, most just assume the period of time is a second.
But the definition says the 2nd component is a unit of time,
ie, any amount of time can be the time component.
The definition definately does not say the time unit is a second, if it did then
a Watt would be a totally different thing..

The main points I am suggesting are that -
1) in a W/m2, the 2nd component, amount of time, has been replaced by an
amount of area as the 2nd component.
Area has NOT been added to the hidden time term in a Watt, ie, per second,
area has replaced time.
My reasoning for this is that a W/m2 is a timeless power figure.
Therefore, a W/m2 has no time in it.
QED - Area has replaced (the supposedly "hidden" - or rather conveniently
assumed) time as the 2nd component in a W/m2.
Also there is no such unit as a W / per second / square meter, which is what a
W/m2 would have to be,
if it, in the Watt contained a hidden time term..

2) Multiplying or dividing by 1 (it does not matter which the "answer" is still
the same) is a black body assumption, that
for a black body can be used to "convert" Watts, to Watt.second, or W/m2,
interchangably.
ie, 1 can be used to add or remove time or area for the amount of energy of a
Watt, for a black body.
1 assumes 100% and instantaneous efficiency, so it can not apply to a gray body
- ie, reality.
This is why we never see gray body versions or explanations of GH, AGW, all
radiation is positively absorbed, et al.
All the above do not, and can not possibly work in reality for gray bodies,
because, gray bodies always emit at less than 1.
QED - GH, AGW, et al, are all black body imaginary scenarios.

W/m2 = a genuine mistake ???

yours,
Derek.
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.
Reply
#48
Quote:I have not really recieved a response or rebuttal anywhere yet to what I am describing in this thread in relation to what a W/m2 actually means.

Maybe my explanations to date have not been good enough, so I have tried "elsewhere" again..

I think it worth repeating here.

I know you asked me what I thought of it.

I have been too busy to give it a hard read of your presentation.

But one thing stands out for me.The improper use of Blackbody calculations for Grey bodies.

They never should assume a perfect number to build their entire case around.It is dead on arrival and should long ago been scrapped for grey body numbers that meet reality.

Since they still repeat the error.Their whole case is junk.
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
Reply
#49
I fully agree a "blackbody" value is not applicable. The same applies to a "graybody". Just look up the emissivity values for concrete rough and smooth. Now try this over the whole planet on all the different types of sufaces not forgetting water which covers +70% of the surface. There is no way you could arrive at a precise value. Therefore I firmly believe energy budgets derived between troposphere and surface are all my eye and Jenny Martin.

I've mentioned before that the atmosphere radiates from a volume which will not have the same temperature in all parts so how can this be related to radiation from a square metre of imaginary surface, black or gray?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#50
Thanks guys. Greatly appreciated in respect of point 2.
In regards of point 2 it seems to me that their own figures are proof that the theories are wrong, because,
as the explanations of GH, AGW, et al, are in black body and, the measurements are in gray body,
then, they should not match. IF the theories were correct.
This is because gray body emission is always less than 1.

Put simply,
gray body measurements from reality that match the black body explanations are PROOF that
the theory explained in black body MUST BE WRONG.

Furthermore, for the gray body measurements to equal the black body figures in the K&T plots,
it must mean that earth's climate system has more than 1 significant energy / heat source.
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.
Reply
#51
With regard to point 1 in post 47,
this may help.
Later addition - nope, it ain't helped yet... LOL. Well, other than I am wrong...

Is power instantaneous, or is it over a second?
ie,
Is 100bhp,
A) The ability to do an amount of work at a rate that is averaged over a second.

or,
B) The ability to do an amount of work, instantaneously, and for as long as that power is applied.

If the answer is A) then "everything" is ok. I however, do not understand what is meant by instantaneous or a timeless power figure though.
BUT.
If the answer is B) then the arguement / line of reasoning I have put here seems to be worthy of further consideration.

Instantaneous, or 1, is damned tricky....
What is the effect of 100bhp for half a second???
If 100bhp for half a second is an amount of work that is equivalent to 50bhp for a second, or just 50bhp worth of work, then
power is not timeless, nor is power instantaneous.

Maybe it is time for me to check the definition of a second.
It seems now that there must be a hidden time term of a second in a power unit whether it be bhp or Watts, or W/m2.

If there is a hidden time term in a power unit (of a second), does that also nullify the second point in post 47???
I think probably not, the 1 in that point is not a second, it is emissivity.
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.
Reply
#52
Where is Climate Realist when you need him....Big Grin
I AM WRONG, in my first point in post 47,
there is a hidden time term of one second in a Watt, and a W/m2.

A pint of beer is just that, a volume or an amount of beer.
However, if you pour a pint of beer onto the floor in a second then you have a flow, a rate, power.
So, a power figure has to be an amount over an amount of time.
For example a bhp also has a hidden time term of a second in it.
Let us say we have a 100bhp engine that burns 10 liters of fuel in 100 seconds.
That would be 100bhp 0.1 liters of fuel.
Does that make sense???
No.

How about, 100bhp per 0.1 liters of fuel per second, now that makes sense.
Power is an amount spread over a time period, which in the SI system is usually one second.
Later addition - The time period HAS TO BE a second because,
anything ties or divided by 1 is the same number.
This means that a timeless power figure divided over a second (averaged) is the same.
That makes sense, that means it can be used to calculate / compare with.
IF the power figure was "timeless" then you could not compare / calculate.
QED - All power figures, by default, because of the mathematical "quirk" of one, have to have (or are rather an amount of work averaged over) a second in them.

It does make me wonder what RTF was trying to do here in his posts???

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.
Reply
#53
Hi All,
"Where" is this thread now???
Err, at the point where it is time to make a pdf I think..

Later edit - The pdf has changed quite a bit and is hopefully nearing it's fourth and final version.
This will be posted asap (in time for Xmas, as has become a sort of "tradition" for me...), but below is what is intended at present to be the start of the final version of the pdf.


In = Out, or else BOOOM.
THE shared mantra and death knell of GH and AGW.

by Derek Alker.
From this thread at the Global Warming Skeptics forum.
What is a Watt???

Aim of this pdf.
This pdf is split into two parts. The first part is to try to illustrate how important water vapour is to earth’s climate system, and how it is currently grossly underestimated / represented within climate science. Before going into (simple and basic, easily understood) scientific details, a thought experiment with obvious correlations to every day observations we can all make / know / understand is used. The reader is then asked to look at the Global Energy budget in this pdf that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses. Please note how little importance the IPCC puts on water vapour and latent heat contribution overall to the climate system. Does this tally with the thought experiment, and the simple science facts discussed?

The four terms to be familiar with.
1) Black body. A black body is a perfect absorber, and emitter of IR, it is instantaneous, and 100% efficient. This can not happen in reality.

2) Gray body. Objects that are actual, real objects. Such objects are 3D, they have volume, they have heat capacity, they can expand and contract with temperature, and they are in a bewildering variety of materials and physical abilities.
Real objects, gray bodies, are in one of four physical states, solid, liquid, gas,
or (the often neglected to be mentioned 4th physical state of) plasma.
Two commonly used terms in relation to gray (and black) bodies are absorptivity and emissivity, both of which the reader will also find useful to understand.

3) Power. In physics, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed.
A power figure is expressed over the time unit of a second.

4) Energy. Is an amount of work, or ability to do work.

Power and Energy are very confusing, they mean and refer to two very different yet easily confused “things”. For example an electrical circuit operates at a certain voltage (that is the power or pressure) whilst the amount of energy flowing is the number of amps.

Another way to think of the difference between power and energy is a water pipe. Imagine a water pipe at a pressure (power) of 10lbs per square inch. The amount of water (energy) flowing in the pipe is how much? You can not answer the question unless you know the size of the pipe. Understanding that is a central point to understanding the second part of this pdf.

Please take your time to understand both the 4 terms listed and the differences between the terms. Where possible, appropriate links have been included in this pdf to help guide the reader to understandable explanations in these respects.

It is reasonable to say that I have always had a serious concern about a Watt/meter squared (W/m2) as a unit, and / or it's present use. In particular as it is used in Global Energy budgets and Greenhouse Effect "theory".
This stems from my naked cooling cannonball experiment, and was my main motivation
for starting the above linked to thread at
the Global Warming Skeptics (GWS) forum.

I will repeat the thought experiment that I am referring to below, which was originally posted on this thread.
Some (hopefully) useful climate science related similes


Attached Files
.pdf   In equals Out THE shared mantra and death knell of GH and AGW by Derek Alker Mk3-2.pdf (Size: 538.59 KB / Downloads: 211)
.pptx   2011 In and Out PP model figures _ Derek.pptx (Size: 165.77 KB / Downloads: 196)
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.
Reply
#54
Hi All,
the below occurred to me last night.
I will post it here in my usual "style", for comments.

There is another mathematical "quirk" not mentioned so far. Namely,
any number times zero IS zero.
Therefore, a black body can not have no mass, otherwise
nothing can not absorb, and nothing can not emit.
So, a black body MUST HAVE a mass of 1 per square meter.
ie, 100% mass.
This is because of the mathematical "quirk" that any number times, or divided by 1 remains the same.

For a gray body the power of emission MUST BE corrected for mass of the gray body emitting at that power.
The mass of the gray body WILL ALWAYS be less than 1, frequently considerably less than 1.
THERE is the "hole",
THERE is the size of the "pipe",
THERE is the missing amount,
in W/m2 calculations for gray body amount of emissions I have been referring to.
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.
Reply
#55
Hi All,
Unfinished 3rd version - now (a slightly later version) attached to original post No. 53.

BTW - A black body must have a mass of 1, but does that mean 100% mass?
If so, what is 100% mass???
I think it means a mass of 1, or 100% the same between emitter and reciever,
ie, the same amount and type of mass, remembering some types of mass will have different IR emission abilities.
Then every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Comments invited.

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.
Reply
#56
Hi All,
A black body emitting IR at a power of 90 W/m2, is said to have an energy flow of 90 Watts per second, or 90 Watts.
(Converted between power, energy or flux, and amount by using the mathematical "quirk" of divided or multiplied by 1)

Yet a gray body recieving 100W/m2 with an anbsorptivity / emissivity of 0.9 is said to emit at a power of (100 x 0.9 = 90) 90W/m2.
The 90W/m2 emitted by the gray body is then converted to an energy flow of 90 Watts per second, or 90 Watts.
(Converted between power, energy or flux, and amount by using the mathematical "quirk" of divided or multiplied by 1)

So,
Black body = 90W/m2 = 90 Watts per second = 90 Watts.
Gray body = 90W/m2 = 90 Watts per second = 90 Watts.

Where is the difference between a black body and a gray body?
AND,
What happens to the 0.1 albedo (10 Watts in the above example) IR, where does it go in current calculations / explanations / plots of gray body?

It would seem that current climate science "physics" gives a black body amount to the power of a gray body emission of IR.
ie, they are the same.........
It would seem reasonable to myself that the 0.1 albedo is probably roughly the amount emitted at that power, if this is correct then
it implies that IR has usually been overestimated by an order of magnitude.

A black body also has to have a mass of 1, so current explanations of what a black body is are incorrect.
This is because any number divided or multiplied by zero, is zero.
Therefore a black body of no mass can not absorb IR, nor can a black body of no mass emit IR.
This is exactly the same reason why space has no temperature, how can nothing have a temperature?
How can nothing absorb IR and how can nothing emit IR?
There is a difference between an imaginary, but very useful concept, and plain simple make believe.
A black body of no mass is make believe, it is pseudo science.

A gray body, as shown above, is currently calculated as a black body amount of IR for a given power of emission by a gray body.
Furthermore, it is physically impossible for absorption to equal emission (In = Out) for a gray body,
because a gray body has volume, a volume with heat capacity. Therefore heat / energy is always going into (warming), or out of (cooling) the gray body.
A gray body also expands or contracts with temperature, or vapourises or condenses with temperature. Work is done, so In can not equal Out for a gray body.
Is it any wonder there is no page on Wikipedia for a gray body?

Both black body and gray body at present are grossly incorrect, both are removed from reality in any meaningful manner.
Niether should be applied (in their current forms), as gray body is particularly in the "physics" of GH and AGW "climate science", to reality.
The only answers black and gray body can give (as currently used) are the wrong and patently unphysical answers.
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.
Reply
#57
Hi All,
The In = Out pdf which in it's earlier versions as in post 53 of this thread is nearly finished now,
it will hopefully be posted here on Friday 23rd December.

2011 obviously... LOL.
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.
Reply
#58
Hi All,
Well, I think I have now finished the In = Out Xmas 2011 pdf. Please see attached.

I welcome comments / suggested changes / etc.
With this in mind I have also attached a word document version for easy editing / suggestions.

I will take a few days off now, try yo come back before New Year and see if the piece warrants a further revision, from the comments I (hopefully) recieve here and by email.


OK, so I am still getting the following message when trying to attach to this post,
" The file upload failed. Please choose a valid file and try again. Error details: The attachment could not be found on the server. "

I will email SST a word document, and pdf version of In = Out, or else BOOOM pdf Final 2nd version, as well as
an accompanying powerpoint of the simplistic overal thermodynamic climate models I have put forward in the piece.
I hope he can post them here, because I can not seem to.

Happy Xmas to one and all.
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.
Reply
#59
Hi All,
It appears there are still problems uploading on this forum, so to meet my self imposed post by Xmas deadline,
I have posted the latest (and final I hope) version on the just grounds community website.
This link takes you to the appropriate thread.
Derek Xmas 2011 pdf In equals Out, or else, BOOOM.

I think anyone should be able to download the files from there.
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.
Reply
#60
Hi All,
It seems there are some very positive comments being posted on the Just Grounds Community page linked to above where the pdf is posted.

At present I am checking if my passport is still valid...
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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)