Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
THE 3 forms of heat loss from an object or surface at earth's surface are...
#21
Notes to self for following post. Links to appropriate GWS threads on this forum where topics have already been discussed to be added.

My fustration is mostly not continuing with lines of thought, but having to "back track" explaining basics, and recieved misconceptions.

Condensation of water vapour at altitude. Does it cause overall expansion, from heat release, or contraction from gas to liquid change of state????
Anatassia paper / subject area where do winds come from.
MODTRAN - modelled "undisclosed" physics, that mean climate models model a flat surface.
If terrain is included models generate 600mph winds not seen in reailty.
Why - condensation "physics" of MODTRAN ???
No one sees MODTRAN without signing a none disclosure agreement first. ie, David Archibald, is he really a skeptic???
- he certainly still teaches GH using glass layer in atmosphere analogy!!!
The effects of condensation of water vapour in earth's atmosphere, an area for research.

Cloud project - Power and flexability of water cycle heat pipe. An area for research.

Tropopause hieght and temperature. Highest and coolest at equator, lowest and warmest at poles.
The height of the tropopause drops dramatically above convected (mostly latent) heat, in real time.
This little known fact may well have great implications for climate science, and relates directly to the "Where do winds come from?" paper I frequently refer to.
It is another effect of latent heat release that could lead strongly to easier escape of heat (energy) as IR from within earth's climatic system to space.

Does condensation of water vapour at altitude cause more expansion of air from heat release, or more contraction of air from change of state?
The changes in tropopause height particularly above convection cells, seems to suggest more and very strong contraction.
The same effect on tropopause height can also be seen over mid latitude depression systems along the front lines.
An area for research.

Earth's hot core produces heat, and magnetism, and "stuff" - where did oceans come from??? Steam in volcanic erruptions / activity the world over AND under...
Other "stuff" produced by earth's hot core - lakes of liquid CO2 on ocean floors.
The earth also hums.
An enourmous area for research.

The transport of less sensible heat, or rather COLD that IS down within the climate system of earth. An area for research.

All the above areas for further research, AND MANY, MANY MORE, are currently ignored or dismissed
BECAUSE OF the GH "theory", and it's bastard child, AGW paradigms.

Views one is not allowed to have or express at present BECAUSE OF the Greenhouse effect "theory" and resultant paradigm include -
1) Earth's surface HAS TWO heat (or energy) sources, the sun and earth's hot core.
2) Cold is transported down within earth's climate system.
3) Earth's climate system is an open system. There are "ins" from the sun and the hot core, there is a "residue", the atmosphere and oceans, and there are "outs", losses to space. Particularly at the poles stripped off by the solar wind.

I think many more scientists have come to realise the above, possibly only in part, but what is the point of restricted to certain areas only scientific and academic research??? None really, other than as a puppet promoting an agenda. That I think is why more and more scientists will "come out" against GH and AGW. Strictly speaking it will not be because they are for or against GH and AGW, but because regardless of GH and AGW there are valid areas of research that are simply not being done, or "allowed" at present. THAT is not science, science would, indeed has to, embrace ALL RESEARCH to test the current ideas / theory / paradigm. AND, if shown paradigms HAVE to be allowed to fail. Zombie science is what we have, no wonder then that it spawns bad political policies, and that effects us all.

Maybe this is a bit too esoteric for many, but in the end how do they justify your taxes??? Heck, how do they justify sending your job in the developed West to China or some such BRIC???? The supposed, but already disproven paradigm of Man made Climate change that's how. Quite an obvious "connection" really.

NEWSFLASH - Dated Easter 2012 - I have heard (although it is probably just a "jape" by an Aussy academic...) that,
Julia Gillard in Australia has, or intends to, redirect all climate change research funding to cancer research.
Apparently she is worried she won't stand a chance of re-election if she holds to the current AGW political and science paradigms.
Is this the first dominoe????? My fingers are crossed. Also this is, up to present, NOT being covered by the Aussy media....Nor anywhere else. YET.....

I have said before the ONLY way to stop this GH and AGW scam dead in it's tracks is to stop voting for ANY politician advocating AGW (and therefore GH) justified policies.
Do not vote for them, BECAUSE you know they are either lying or incompetent, because of the false paradigm they hold to / advocate.
GH and AGW is for their (TAXING THE PEOPLE) benefit, not your benefit, not the planet's benfit. However much they proclaim otherwise.

Later addition -
Whether the above newsflash was just a jape or not, there are distinct changes in climate change related funding of "things" in Australia,
as well as a growing public rejection of carbon "justified" taxes.
AND THEY APPEAR TO BE BEING DRIVEN BY PUBLIC ANGER...VOTING, OR NOT VOTING WORKS...
There go those gravy trains in Queensland & Victoria
There may be hope afterall.

I may add more yet..It will all end up in the solar geothermal powered refrigerator thread and pdf eventually anyway.
That is why I am posting so I do not loose the line of thought/s.

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
#22
It was suggested by a poster on this thread that I encourage and engage in strong discussion of the ideas that I am trying to explain and illustrate.
I think I have done such, to no reply.

Another everyday example has sprung to my mind that may also help illustrate. It starts with a simple question, as follows.

What does "failed" double glazing show???

Double glazing works by confining an amount of air between two panes of glass as a sealed unit. The trapped gas is dry air. (We discussed this on the forum some time back, if anyone can remember the thread, please, please post a link.) Dry air, as Climate Realist has already stated in this thread is a very poor conductor of heat. The heat of the house interior where double glazing is fitted escapes very slowly to the comparative sensible cold outside of the house.

Double glazing (DG) is said, quite accurately, to have "failed" when the seal between the two panes develops a leak. A leak by which moist air can enter the DG unit as temperature varies over the course of a day and night. This failure is very obvious as condensation appears between the glass panes of the DG unit. The now not sealed unit no longer "works". Heat easily escapes from inside to outside of the house. WHY? What changed? The only visible difference is that a failed DG unit has a little water condensation inside of it. Surely that alone can not make much of a difference??? Yes, it can and does.

Let us consider this by taking a step backwards, back to when a DG unit worked, ie before it failed.

In a working DG unit the dry air is warmed by one pane of glass, and so the heated air expands and convects within the confines of the DG unit. When this air reaches the cooler (outer) pane it's sensible heat is conducted to the cooler pane of glass. This warms the the second pane of glass with heat transferred by conduction of the hot air from the first (inner) warmed pane of glass. The second (outer) pane is now warmed and conducts and convects the heat away to the colder outside air. Because heat transfer from inside to the outside happens at a far slower rate than for a single pane of glass window then rooms with DG units stay warmer for far, far longer. This is because of the the very poor conduction by dry air of sensible heat, which reduces the rate of heat loss from the room.

Figure 1 to be added - a "dry" heat pipe....
Yes, I know such a thing does not exist, but it is how DG works.

In a failed DG unit Figure 1 is little altered, as shown below in Figure 2

Figure 2 to be added. A "wet" heat pipe.
Yes, I know it ain't a heat pipe unless it uses latent heat.....

A heat pipe is,
Figure 3
[Image: Slide13.jpg]

Some examples of heat pipes.
Figure 4.
[Image: Slide14.jpg]

If you look at Figure 3 it is quite apparent that it is actually just turned on it's side for Figure 2. In other words,a failed DG unit does not work, it does not slow heat transfer, it dramatically increases heat transfer. Just by the leaking seal of the DG unit turning it from a "dry" to a "wet" heat pipe.

Given the above it is now reasonable that we can answer the question "What does "failed" double glazing show???"

1) It shows that a DG unit works because it contains dry air. It is in effect a "dry" heat pipe. This isa very effect way of reducing heat loss from a heated room because dry air is a very poor conductor of sensible heat. In other words, in air conduction and convection are very weak heat loss and transfer processes, and mechanisms.

2) A failed DG unit shows that a "wet" heat pipe can transfer / transport large amounts of heat very quickly from one place (of evaporation) to another place (where condensation is occurring). This is due to the energies required by the changes of state from liquid to gas, and back to liquid again, and again, and again.
In other words latent heat transfered by the change of states of water are of vastly greater power and conduction of heat by dry air.

3) The water cycle in earth's climate is a "wet" heat pipe.
Figure 5.
[Image: Slide15.jpg]

4) The vast difference in the capability to move heat betwwen a "dry" and a "wet" heat pipe, as I have descried them here, also strongly suggests, if not proves that water in it's various states must be the dominant force within earth's climate system. This is because the water cycle is a "wet" heat pipe, which is the strongest, most powerful, and of greatest importance overall cooling mechanism on earths surface.



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
#23
From post 12:

Quote:You can't transport "cold" as such. Cold is only how our senses let us know an object or environment has less heat than is comfortable for our bodies. Cold in itself does not exist! Only differing amounts of heat in matter.

I'm not saying that evaporation isn't important. Just that you seem to have something against convection. Greenhouses work by stopping convection, thus trapping a warm body of air that would other wise rise. As does a layer of clouds on a winter night in the UK that prevents heat loss by convection and thus prevents frost.

You shouldn't be thinking of "cold" as a physical entity in itself. But of differing levels of heat. At all temperatures above 0K, all bodies have some heat, i.e. some vibrational energy in their molecular structure.

The way I see it is that the word cold in weather/climate matters only describes a reduced energy state of molecules that are involved in local areas of the planets surface to the atmosphere.

We as humans use the word as a description that explains why we are shivering or feel uncomfortable with the local surrounding air we are in.But at all times there is still warmth in it because the molecules are still moving and have had absorbed radiation to make them still move around.

In large areas of space is a vacuum or nearly so that can not be "cold" because there is almost no matter in it at all.It is a confusing concept since it requires actual molecules and gases to make the existence of what we called cold to be possible.But it is merely a lower energy state that make it feel or measured as being cold.It is a living beings perception through our senses that we are actually feeling a reduced energy state.

Without matter there is nothing there to make it feel cold.There is also no heat either in the absence of matter.

The gas that is compressed in a refrigerators compressor causes heat due to input pressure and then when released and spread out the gas cools down greatly to make it feel cold.The amount of gas in the compressor was the same but the pressure and volume area changes to make the heat be spread out and radiated away.

Cold by itself does not really exist.
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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)