Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:40 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6253
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Fly,

Recalled your interest the amount of net heat transfer per square meter for estimating climate change. Here's a take on why that is an erroneous approach to take.

Bottom line is the physicist asserts that the greenhouse gasses absorb the heat as oscillations within the bonds of the molecules rather than vibrations of the entire molecule as heat. We see an example of this in the stratosphere as ultraviolet radiation adds more heat via a disassociation of bonds further away from the earth. He concludes that to heat that molecule, it must be infused with radiant energy containing higher energy at every frequency of oscillation. So, greenhouse gasses acting as an insulating blanket cannot heat the atmosphere because the earth's thermal radiation does not contain higher energy levels at all frequencies of oscillation. Also, since the oscillation of bonds within molecules is frictionless, that increased energy can be maintained indefinitely without creating heat.
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by Daryl   » Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:53 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2872
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Just read it, and disagree.
Not going to write reams of information, but in short the author tries to disprove the "green house effect", however he fails. A simple way to illustrate this, is that his alternative theory would mean that physical green houses wouldn't work, but any gardener will dispute that.
PeterZ wrote:Fly,

Recalled your interest the amount of net heat transfer per square meter for estimating climate change. Here's a take on why that is an erroneous approach to take.

Bottom line is the physicist asserts that the greenhouse gasses absorb the heat as oscillations within the bonds of the molecules rather than vibrations of the entire molecule as heat. We see an example of this in the stratosphere as ultraviolet radiation adds more heat via a disassociation of bonds further away from the earth. He concludes that to heat that molecule, it must be infused with radiant energy containing higher energy at every frequency of oscillation. So, greenhouse gasses acting as an insulating blanket cannot heat the atmosphere because the earth's thermal radiation does not contain higher energy levels at all frequencies of oscillation. Also, since the oscillation of bonds within molecules is frictionless, that increased energy can be maintained indefinitely without creating heat.
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by PeterZ   » Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:46 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6253
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

A terrestrial greenhouse has solar input all the time. The glass acts as an insultation. Absent solar input, the greenhouse grows cold. That's his point, the greenhouse cannot heat itself. So the greenhouse gasses cannot heat the planet beyond the current surface temperature that radiates the energy into the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

The mechanism is that radiated heat is captured in the bonds of the molecules. That same process that occurs in the stratosphere when UV rays adds sufficiently high levels of energy to the bonds of the molecules there to dissociate the atoms. Releasing energy that makes the stratosphere closer to the sun hotter than the area closer to the earth. Unlike every other part of the atmosphere, where proximity to the earth means warmer temperatures.

Radiant energy in the atmosphere appears to be captured in the bonds which oscillates without friction and so generates no heat loss. The article suggests that the energy altering the oscillation of the bonds impacts the amplitude of the oscillation in the various frequencies, rather than changing the frequency or vibrating the molecule as a whole.

Again, not sure if this is accurate, but it does fit observed facts. Especially the change in global temperatures that correlate powerfully with chlorofluorocarbon emissions either man made or from open lava flows.
Daryl wrote:Just read it, and disagree.
Not going to write reams of information, but in short the author tries to disprove the "green house effect", however he fails. A simple way to illustrate this, is that his alternative theory would mean that physical green houses wouldn't work, but any gardener will dispute that.

PeterZ wrote:Fly,

Recalled your interest the amount of net heat transfer per square meter for estimating climate change. Here's a take on why that is an erroneous approach to take.

Bottom line is the physicist asserts that the greenhouse gasses absorb the heat as oscillations within the bonds of the molecules rather than vibrations of the entire molecule as heat. We see an example of this in the stratosphere as ultraviolet radiation adds more heat via a disassociation of bonds further away from the earth. He concludes that to heat that molecule, it must be infused with radiant energy containing higher energy at every frequency of oscillation. So, greenhouse gasses acting as an insulating blanket cannot heat the atmosphere because the earth's thermal radiation does not contain higher energy levels at all frequencies of oscillation. Also, since the oscillation of bonds within molecules is frictionless, that increased energy can be maintained indefinitely without creating heat.
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by Joat42   » Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:54 pm

Joat42
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

PeterZ wrote:..snip..
Radiant energy in the atmosphere appears to be captured in the bonds which oscillates without friction and so generates no heat loss. The article suggests that the energy altering the oscillation of the bonds impacts the amplitude of the oscillation in the various frequencies, rather than changing the frequency or vibrating the molecule as a whole.
..snip..

Hmm.. That statement explicitly means that the whole concept violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by Daryl   » Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:42 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2872
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Getting mixed up with the ozone layer problem?
Especially the change in global temperatures that correlate powerfully with chlorofluorocarbon emissions either man made or from open lava flows.


One word - reflection. High intensity solar rays pass straight through the atmosphere, while low intensity infra red rays from the surface are reflected back. Just like the glass in a green house does. Not all, but enough to tip the balance over time,
Nothing to do with the fancy physics quoted, just bounced back.
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:03 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1519
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Okay. I will finally respond.

The Greenhouse Effect is very real. It explains why Earth is much warmer than simplified thermodynamics suggest that it should be.

The equation for black body radiation is:

Power = Stephan-Boltzman constant x (temperature)^4

(Power / Stephan-Botlzman ) ^ (1/4) = equilibrium temperature

Crunch the numbers using average insolation and you find that Earth should be frozen over.

The Earth isn't frozen over because this simplified equation ignores two important variables, albedo and IR emissivity.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theology is predicated on the not totally unreasonable supposition that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere effectively decreases the IR emissivity of the planet. Svante Arrhenius had a bit ofva feud with Robert Angstrom about his presumptions about the ability of CO2 to absorb IR rsdiation compared to H2O. Arrhenius eventually capitulated to Angstrom (who was actually doing the measurements) but presumed that CO2 somehow regulates the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. While there are some theories, the extreme variability of H2O vapor verses the nearly constant concentration of CO2 severely undermines the idea that CO2 regulates H2O.

More importantly, the process of evaporation, convection, condensation and precipitation acts as a planetary air conditioner that effectively short circuits the greenhouse effect by emitting heat at high altitude where there is minimal impedence by CO2.

Also, AGW theology pretty much ignores the fact that the Earth's albedo is just as important as IR emissivity. The reflectivity of clouds was until recently ignored. Amusingly, the AGW theologians invoked a feedback loop with Arctic ice that ignored the seasonal variations solar insolation as well as the fact that Arctic ice effectively limits emissivity by impeding heat transfer from the relatively warm Arctic waters to the ice surface.

I have no need to entertain novel ideas about thermodynamics to question the validity of AGW theology.

I also do not need to utilize Weberesque handavium about an "active CO2 cycle" to explain why Sphynx is habitable. Just plant big assedo continents at both poles to prevent heat transport via the oceans to the poles and you massively reduce the effective radiating surface of the planet. (Yes, the Atmosphere can transport heat but that is diddly shit compared to ocean heat transport.) Anyone familiar with the Earth's atmospheric lapse rate should also understand that simply giving Sphynx a denser atmosphere will reduce the effective IR emissivity resulting in warmer surface temperatures.

Question: why does the Honorverse not have variations in human tolerance for the partial pressure of varioys atmospheric gases such as CO2 and Oxygen? Someone that has been adapted to a planet with very low Oxygen partial pressure is going to suffer from Oxygen toxicity if they visit a planet with a much higher partial pressure of Oxygen and visa versa. Those pesky San Martinos should be adapted to a very high partial pressure of Oxygen so that they are not restricted to living on mountains.

Weber has told us much about male San Martino charactets. Given the shear mechanics of two, 200+ bodies mating in a high gravity environment, the adaptations needed to ensure viable inseminations while resisting the bending moments and shear forces should make San Martino males either very popular with the ladies of other planets or terrafying. Weber has not revealed any female San Martinos, perhaps because they are not attractive to males from more normal planets?
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:01 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
Weber has told us much about male San Martino charactets. Given the shear mechanics of two, 200+ bodies mating in a high gravity environment, the adaptations needed to ensure viable inseminations while resisting the bending moments and shear forces should make San Martino males either very popular with the ladies of other planets or terrafying. Weber has not revealed any female San Martinos, perhaps because they are not attractive to males from more normal planets?


Considering the strain of carrying 9+ kg child, I doubt that San Martinos womens have high fertility. And more than single child simultaneously may become a real health hazard.

P.S. Why exctly anyone would want to settle high-g planet anyway? It is not that San Martin is close to Old Earth, so it could not be the case of "nothig better within sublight range". 2,7 g is so much biological & engineering strain, that frankly, it wouldn't be much harder to build rotating habitat.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by Michael Everett   » Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:06 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2389
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

Dilandu wrote: Why exactly anyone would want to settle high-g planet anyway? It is not that San Martin is close to Old Earth, so it could not be the case of "nothing better within sublight range". 2,7 g is so much biological & engineering strain, that frankly, it wouldn't be much harder to build rotating habitat.

The problem here is that you're assuming that the question is "why".
Given how humans tend to approach new things, the question they probably asked was "why not?"
in other words, they did it to see if it was possible to do so.
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
Animal Crossing Dreams at 6E00-00F5-2891
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by jchilds   » Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:39 am

jchilds
Captain of the List

Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

Wasn't one of Honor's jailors in In Enemy Hands female and from San Martin?
Last edited by jchilds on Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: Ping TFLYTSNBN- interesting bit of physics
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:45 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Michael Everett wrote:The problem here is that you're assuming that the question is "why".
Given how humans tend to approach new things, the question they probably asked was "why not?"
in other words, they did it to see if it was possible to do so.


Nah, I don't think so. Humans tend to not settle the very uncomfortable places unless they have serious economic reasons to do so. The Antarctica is a perfect example.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top

Return to Politics