Received: by 10.68.223.73 with SMTP id qs9mr5594571pbc.7.1342302642735; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11739pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,sci.physics Subject: Re: Scientific Americans solution to AGW Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 161 Message-ID: <47f5604d-dda6-4061-9212-36d7fb0ae076@qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> References: <1029b53f-357d-4cb3-854c-85c766bb4517@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.81.105 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1342302642 7724 127.0.0.1 (14 Jul 2012 21:50:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:50:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.105.81.105; posting-account=x6NC_QoAAACOyRdnEcrV9oLtnJGZvbEx User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jul 14, 2:24=A0pm, Tom P wrote: > On 07/14/2012 08:49 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:26 am, Tom P wrote: > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9a3b019fabf47cc6 > > >> On 07/14/2012 09:23 AM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: > >>> On Jul 13, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward wrote: > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/09a1452ae8f8967.= .. > >>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:33:21 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wr= ote: > >>>>> On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote= : > >>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:26:40, Bill Ward > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:57:27 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 10:35 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 12:23=FFam, Paul Aubrin wrote:" > >>>>>>>>>> Blankets mostly warm by preventing convection" > >>>>>>>>>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy? > >>>>>>>>> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective hea= t > >>>>>>>>> transfer, not radiative heat transfer. =A0Only a reflector can > >>>>>>>>> prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective. > >>>>>>>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal > >>>>>>>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than > >>>>>>>> standard single pane windows. =A0So are you claiming the argon g= as > >>>>>>>> molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do > >>>>>>>> with improving a home=92s insulating efficiency when single pane > >>>>>>>> windows are replace with argon filled double glazed windows? > >>>>>>> Argon has nothing to do with it. =A0In fact, nothing (vacuum) wou= ld be > >>>>>>> better. > >>>>>>> In three clear and concise sentences, Will has exposed cai's abje= ct > >>>>>>> ignorance of heat transfer for all to see. =A0Congratulations, Wi= ll.. > >>>>>> Thank you Bill. =A0 I can use all the help I can get here. =A0 I a= m not a > >>>>>> scientist, but only an ex-engineer, =A0My analysis must be not onl= y > >>>>>> correct, but also result in profit, else I are a goner! > >>>>>> BTW I am wrong most of the time. =A0Aw shits abound! =A0 -will- > >>>>> Laughing, na, the two of you seem to be under some false impression= that > >>>>> your opinions validate the idiotic assertion. =A0Once again how abo= ut > >>>>> filling the area between the 2 layers of glass with co2, now are yo= u > >>>>> claiming the co2 will not impede the transfer of thermal energy in = a > >>>>> different manner than argon or a vacuum? > >>>> cai, you are simply wrong. =A0You show you have no clue as to the > >>>> difference between heat and EM radiation, and seem proud of the fact= . > >>>> I'd try to explain it to you, but from your posting record I can see= it's > >>>> likely a total waste of time. > >>>> Suffice it to say heat is molecular motion, EM radiation is light. > >>>> Will's explanation is entirely and precisely correct. =A0CO2 would l= et MORE > >>>> thermal energy through to the outside air than nothing (a vacuum) wo= uld. > >>> that would be a bs reply, =A0based on an appeal to your own authority > >>> which is par from you. =A0Infrared energy is emitted from all objects > >>> above 0 deg kelvin, and since the objects in the room are above 0 deg > >>> k the co2 between the glass would absorb the energy as its passing > >>> through the window. =A0Think of it this way bill, the co2 gas would a= ct > >>> as a filter, impeding the flow of energy in a specific part of the > >>> electromagnetic spectrum. =A0The co2 would absorb more IR energy pass= ing > >>> through the glass/gas/glass barrier, compared to no gas, or argon > >>> between the two layers of glass. =A0Absorption then increases the > >>> average kinetic energy of the co2 molecules, which increases molecula= r > >>> collisions with the container wall, resulting in a higher temperature > >>> of the glass window. > >> I've been away for a while and so I'm jumping into the thread at vario= us > >> places. As far as the double glazing thing is concerned, I don't belie= ve > >> that LW radiation, or absorption thereof, is the primary issue. Window= s > >> lose heat mainly by simple conduction. The relevant thermal > >> conductivities are - > >> Air 0.026 =A0(W/mK) > >> Ar 0.018 > >> CO2 0.017 > >> H2 =A00.182 > >> N2 0.026 > >> Glass 0.96 > >> In other words, a 1 cm layer of CO2 or Argon will insulate as well as > >> 1.5 cm of air or 55 cm of glass. Since we don't really want windows > >> nearly 2 feet thick, it makes sense to use double glazing. > >> =A0 =A0 Why Argon rather than CO2? A good question. According to Wikip= edia > >> the reason is that the =A0higher viscosity of Argon reduces convection > >> within the structure. Of course a vacuum would be even better but the > >> diminishing returns of maintaining the structure against the surroundi= ng > >> air pressure make it economically less attractive. In the final analys= is > >> there is no point in making the windows better insulators than the wal= ls. > > > I understand thanks, but the point is that co2 may not make a > > practical efficient insulator, but neither is the atmosphere, thats > > why the comparison is reasonable. =A0I am not arguing that argon doesn= =92t > > make the best gas to fill the double paned window, it molecular mass, > > the facts it a noble gas, and its cheap make it practical, but > > practical is not the point. Bjacoby declared an insulator must be > > reflective, and i have shown how co2 a non-reflective gas will absorb > > a portion of the emitted energy from a blackbody source; it will > > impede the flow of energy. > > > The room (cavity of the blackbody source) has a double walled window > > transparent to IR say 2-20um (no coatings) which allows thermal > > emitted energy to pass through. =A0If the gas between the glass panes i= s > > co2, the 15um band will be subtracted out of from the observed > > spectrum, while a pane filled with argon will not. =A0This absorption i= s > > an impedance to the flow of energy, the co2 in this case acts as an > > insulator partially due to the fact it absorbs part of the energy > > passing through. > > The glass itself absorbs IR, which complicates the argument. Like I > said, heat loss through a single pane glass window is mainly by > conduction. I don't think that adding a CO2 layer to double glazing is > going to have a significant effect on the heat loss, but it should be > possible to do some calculations, given the properties of the glass. > =A0 Obviously, you are not going to make a double glazed window out of > glass with high transmissivity in the infrared. My point was countering the assertion by bill that the gas makes no difference, and my point is that, it does, when the gas absorbs in the ir region of the electromagnetic spectrum. This absorption by the glass increases the vibrational motion of molecules which causes a slight decrease in the index of refraction, but does not stop transmission in the 2-20um. The example of the gas filled window was used to set up a comparison to the earth atmosphere, a blackbody source with emitted energy passing through a filter. The co2 filter is not highly efficient but impedes the flow of enough by effecting the rate of change, which slightly increase the average kinetic energy in the system.