On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:20:09 AM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:46:39 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:30:26 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/08/2015 20:26, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

*I* understand the Pictet experment. You *clearly* do not and you are
parading your now wilful ignorance here endlessly just like a netkook..

Your lack of understanding of basic physics is exposed. You are a crank!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I used the term 'idiot'. Hope you don't mind.

I did not want to be rude to Martin, and tell him he just another Dawlish..

Odd that you wish to fixate on one person, when so many have told you that your ideas are nonsensical, stupid and cranky (none of them my terms).

It's what people like you do to try to justify what they believe to themselves. It's exactly what happens with climate deniers and you are no different. You deny the science and propose that you know better than everyone else.. That makes you clearly an idiot and I believe there would be very few on here that would disagree with that statement after your foray into 'cold radiation'.

Just accept you are completely wrong and change your mind. People will think far better of you if you do and will put this in the past, if you demonstrate that you can learn.

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 19:43:19 UTC+1, Bernard Burton wrote:


All objects above absolute zero are emitting
radiation.

How do they do that?

If you can't go below absolute zero then everything must be radiant. Even the things at absolute zero would have to get warm unless there is something to shield them but that couldn't be indefinitely.

I don't know why anyone would want to pursue this idea since it doesn't go anywhere, or does it do anything when it gets where I can't see it going?

I was watching the contrails forming mares tails yesterday and realised that cold can fall from the sky in a very few hours. The planes, liners of several hundred tons pull down a portion of the sky above them in reaction to their wing loading.

And it occurred to me that the sky is full of freezing air all the way up from the tropopause. This ice must exist as a sublime crystal turning the sky blue while all the red light is absorbed and whatever.

All that is required to bring it all the way down is prolonged calm, thus we get frosts. We can see from weather models how straight lines of cyclones drag anticyclones into their midst. And we know that in order for cyclones to last that long there has to be calm for long enough for them to form and reach cyclosis.

But in a very few days it is all over. What appears to happen in this cycle we are watching now is that the cross winds formed are in a line storm format with the break-up of the pressure systems seldom varying far from 1016 mb near sea level.

It seems as though temperatures have graded out as well, as there is apparently nothing to shift all these systems from the dead-lock/Langrangian Points they might be in. Nor does there seem to be any way to change it until the ice cover is restored in winter.

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 15:52:09 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm.

Hopefully human lives or enquiries into human deaths are considered important enough to produce research like this and ensure it is true.

If so then it appears that temperature monitors are incapable of dealing with heat calibration if the materials used are unfit for human habitation. Unfortunately you posted this discussion to people with ties to certain irredeemable mind-sets.

The ability to think something through is not given away in examination results nor even scientific papers. Speaking from the outside, all you get in a good education is unrefuted facts you can put on paper and wave to the crowd.

Then either hang it on a wall or use it to wipe your bottom.

On Friday, 23 September 2016 22:36:19 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 15:52:09 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm.

Hopefully human lives or enquiries into human deaths are considered important enough to produce research like this and ensure it is true.

If so then it appears that temperature monitors are incapable of dealing with heat calibration if the materials used are unfit for human habitation. Unfortunately you posted this discussion to people with ties to certain irredeemable mind-sets.

I have had a chance to sleep on the ideas you poster Pictet and Rumford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjam...iments_on_heat) and it occurred to me that they must have been working with a phenomenon not yet realised to be polarisation.

How such a thing affects the atmosphere is anyone's guess of course it is highly likely that go told the angels unless he let them realise what was happening when they created light and sorted out the chaos of prehistoric times.

In which case gods know.

Now we have the problem of explaining the mechanism; unless any of the sentient following this thread had carried out the work somewhere on the way to 190+posts of exhaustingly dawlishness.

(Speaking of the devil I wonder if he writes these things: Boots is not the organizer or sponsor of this game. Enter our game and let your luck without complex. Just a few moments to fill out our form and try to take this great prize at stake. Please fill out and complete your details. Also discover the advantages and good deals offered by our partners. This game has no purchasing obligation See website for other terms and regulation.)

But I doubt that anyone more scientific than you or Asha have bothered to follow it up. Nor do I have the facilities. I can ponder on the effect Asha pointed out, that Charon and Pluto although floating in a near vacuum only broken by starlight, are cold (as far as we can tell from a distance.)

What that all means for variable stars and cosmogyny, even guest stars if the Oort clouds turn out to be polarising mirrors/lenses remains to be discovered.

What it means for atmospheric science is that the red sky at night, red sky in the morning conundrum is related to the difficulties that the flowerpeople have with all their hokey shtick: How cloud albedo affects temperature.

(Boy am I glad I made up my mind early about all that crap.)
I was carding through my spam filter when I saw that and thought of him. Volcano Listserve recently got a new editor and he doesn't seem to post up to date volcano notices.

Obviously if the sun is not a nuclear bomb then it has to be powered by the solar system, which brigs us back to the problem of ice giants and why they are cold if action and reaction is equal and opposite.

We know that a great storm like Jupiter's has to have so much energy supplied from somewhere. We don't know anything about their volcanic activities but their layers of swaddling must be holding a great deal of heat from us. But where is it being delivered to?

Time to start preparing to probe the polar winters of the gas giants I believe. What hath god wrought?

It should be relatively cheap to find out. Anyone on here competent enough to make a thermoscope?

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 08:09:57 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:

It should be relatively cheap to find out. Anyone on here competent enough to make a thermoscope?

That bit about the thermoscope was absolute tosh, I'd thought he was going to use a mirror and ice presuming he knew enough about the inverse square rule for distances -but of course he may have been uninformed abou Mme du Chatelet's work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...Heat_and_light hard to believe though.

Impossible to believe!

Rumford was born in 1753 just after she died and must have read her translation of Newton as well as her dissertation on IR light. So when was polarised light discovered I believe it was around that time with the discovery of organic chemistry and the examination of sugar solutes.

And how would cold affect mirrors?
I can understand the temperature drop with the glass screen especially considering the quality of glass in that era. But it is a little beyond me how a bit of ice would render a tin mirror US. OTOH of course, what do I know about polarity. Nor how sensitive there measurements were.

OT: The theories about heat may well have been made more difficult if the heat source used in the day were spirit, paraffin or wax rather than charcoal. More profoundly as the flammability of liquids increases with height, whilst charcoal does not.

On 2015-08-06 14:52:07 +0000, Alastair said:

Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

I am not arguing or taking sides (hard to believe, I know) but please
consider this.

Place an ice cube on a suitable surface (use tongs to protect your body
heat) and move your forefinger near to it until you feel the cooling
effect. This is caused by:

a) The cold is radiating from the ice cube, causing your fingertip to
feel less warm than before, or

b) The warmth from your finger is radiating towards the cooler ice
cube, causing your fingertip to feel less warm than before.

Then try this.

Put a kettle on to boil and move a fingertip towards the body of the
kettle until you feel the heat (taking great care not to burn
yourself). This is caused by:

c) The heat is radiating from the kettle, causing your fingertip to
feel warmer than before, or

d) The relative cold from your finger is radiating towards the kettle,
causing your fingertip to feel warmer than before.

The explanations for each outcome must agree, in other words you may
choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c). Other combinations
would be self cancelling and therefore incorrect.

No advanced physics, no references to abstruse web sites, just a simple
experiment that we can all do and probably have done by chance many
times.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

In article , lid says...

On 2015-08-06 14:52:07 +0000, Alastair said:

Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

I am not arguing or taking sides (hard to believe, I know) but please
consider this.

Place an ice cube on a suitable surface (use tongs to protect your body
heat) and move your forefinger near to it until you feel the cooling
effect. This is caused by:

a) The cold is radiating from the ice cube, causing your fingertip to
feel less warm than before, or

b) The warmth from your finger is radiating towards the cooler ice
cube, causing your fingertip to feel less warm than before.


Well both of those answers are wrong to my mind.

I would say that your finger feels colder because of the reduction in
the ambient background radiation but mostly because of conductive heat
transfer in the air between the finger and the ice cube. ie, your finger
is entering the zone of chilled air around the ice cube.


Then try this.

Put a kettle on to boil and move a fingertip towards the body of the
kettle until you feel the heat (taking great care not to burn
yourself). This is caused by:

c) The heat is radiating from the kettle, causing your fingertip to
feel warmer than before, or

d) The relative cold from your finger is radiating towards the kettle,
causing your fingertip to feel warmer than before.

The explanations for each outcome must agree, in other words you may
choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c). Other combinations
would be self cancelling and therefore incorrect.



Assuming the veracity of the answers given, this would only be true if
there can only be one type of radiation. In truth, if both types of
radiation can co-exist then the answer would surely be a,b,c & d.




No advanced physics, no references to abstruse web sites, just a simple
experiment that we can all do and probably have done by chance many
times.



--
Alan LeHun

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 16:09:26 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2015-08-06 14:52:07 +0000, Alastair said:

Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

I am not arguing or taking sides (hard to believe, I know) but please
consider this.

Place an ice cube on a suitable surface (use tongs to protect your body
heat) and move your forefinger near to it until you feel the cooling
effect. This is caused by:

a) The cold is radiating from the ice cube, causing your fingertip to
feel less warm than before, or

b) The warmth from your finger is radiating towards the cooler ice
cube, causing your fingertip to feel less warm than before.

Then try this.

Put a kettle on to boil and move a fingertip towards the body of the
kettle until you feel the heat (taking great care not to burn
yourself). This is caused by:

c) The heat is radiating from the kettle, causing your fingertip to
feel warmer than before, or

d) The relative cold from your finger is radiating towards the kettle,
causing your fingertip to feel warmer than before.

The explanations for each outcome must agree, in other words you may
choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c). Other combinations
would be self cancelling and therefore incorrect.

No advanced physics, no references to abstruse web sites, just a simple
experiment that we can all do and probably have done by chance many
times.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha, the correct pair are a and c. In the case of both the ice cube and the kettle the radiation from your finger does not change. So how can it be an agent? It is the radiation from the ice cube and the kettle which is causing the temperature of your finger to change.

If you have a basin of water at room temperature and add cold water to it, it will cool but eventually return to room temperature. If you add hot water to the basin the water will warm and eventually return to room temperature.

If you place your finger below a kettle, to prevent it being affected by convection, it will feel warm because of the warm radiation, and if you place it above and ice cube it will feel cold because of the cold radiation.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT KETTLES EMIT WARM RADIATION AND ICE CUBES EMIT COLD RADIATION (Caps lock got stuck). It is as simple as that.

A reason why my critics find this to understand is that the power emitted by a blackbody depends on the fourth power of its temperature. Thus a boiling kettle emits at 373^4 and an ice cube at 270^4. My finger is at say 300K and emiting at 300^4. The heating effect of the kettle is 19 - 8.1 = 10.9 compared with the cooling effect of the ice cube which is 5.3 - 8.1 = - 2.8 a very much smaller effect. In fact I doubt if anyone has noticed the effect of radiation, from an ice cube except you of course :-)

However, please let's not start this debate all over again. If there is anyone who does not want to believe that ice cubes emit cold radiation them it is alright by me.

On 2016-09-24 20:19:29 +0000, Alastair said:

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 16:09:26 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2015-08-06 14:52:07 +0000, Alastair said:

Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

I am not arguing or taking sides (hard to believe, I know) but please
consider this.

Place an ice cube on a suitable surface (use tongs to protect your
body heat) and move your forefinger near to it until you feel the
cooling effect. This is caused by:

a) The cold is radiating from the ice cube, causing your fingertip to
feel less warm than before, or

b) The warmth from your finger is radiating towards the cooler ice
cube, causing your fingertip to feel less warm than before.

Then try this.

Put a kettle on to boil and move a fingertip towards the body of the
kettle until you feel the heat (taking great care not to burn
yourself). This is caused by:

c) The heat is radiating from the kettle, causing your fingertip to
feel warmer than before, or

d) The relative cold from your finger is radiating towards the kettle,
causing your fingertip to feel warmer than before.

The explanations for each outcome must agree, in other words you may
choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c). Other combinations
would be self cancelling and therefore incorrect.

No advanced physics, no references to abstruse web sites, just a
simple experiment that we can all do and probably have done by chance
many times.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha, the correct pair are a and c. In the case of both the ice cube
and the kettle the radiation from your finger does not change. So how
can it be an agent?

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine. Fingers radiate and that
radiation varies constantly (unless you are seriously ill).

Why is it when one offers someone two choices, they always pick a third
non-existent option?

I repeat, "you may choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c)."
Choose an option available to you. I am making the offer; you do not
get to invent options for yourself.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.