A thought experiment

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > A thought experiment

A thought experiment29-06-2026 21:37
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (26)	Ok so this forum should be a good place for this. Since there are certain people in this forum who are very adamant that nothing can be measured to any usable margin of error I figured I'll do a thought experiment. Say we have 2 identical cups with water, the only difference is that 1 cup is ir-transparent, the other is ir-opaque. (some ir-transparent plastic and say ceramics, doesnt matter). Say we are supplying the same amount of energy to these cups by shining a 100w bulb on top of them, we are warming the water, so the energy supply for both cups is the same. Now the question is: will the t of the water in cups (or cups themselves) be different or the same? And why? We will only take into account radiative cooling. The incoming energy is the same, the energy leaving should be different, since for the ir-transparent cup the overall e will be higher (water is a good emitter). e for water is about 0.95, for some ceramics lets say it's 0.4. The second cup (a ceramic one, ir-opaque) should emit less and so it should have a higher t. Is this correct? and why? Now also we can imagine two cylinders, they are identical, they have a hole at the top and bottom. But one has a bigger hole at the bottom than the other. Now we will pour continuously the same amount of water into both. The q: which cyl will have the higher water level? I think it's pretty obvious the one with a smaller hole in the bottom, since it will be able to get rid of less water per s than the other cyl. So how is the earth different from these? We have a constant supply of energy. Say we are changing the "hole" through which the energy can escape (lets say we are lowering its E somehow, but we are keeping the absorptivity the same). Wouldn't the earth heat up with these conditions? I'm not saying that adding a tiny amount of co2 can change the earths E to any measurable degree, but it kinda makes sense that if youre keeping the energy inflow the same and choke the outflow, the "energy level" can rise. Or we can imagine two identical spheres, with a small hole that we'll shine a laser through to supply energy. One sphere will have a 0.95 E and the other - E of 0.1. Which one will be hotter and why? Another question : can the earth change its E while keeping the absorptivity the same? (this is what's happening according to the "climate science"). That is needed to raise its T. They are saying that the earths ability to radiate is becoming smaller, while its still receiving the same amount of energy from the sun. Is this even possible? Why or why not? I mean if you have two bodies with the same supply of energy, but with different emissivities, obviously one will radiate more and should be cooler. Now can this analogy be applied to the earth? Why or why not? Can some gas or substance reduce the earths ability to radiate while keeping its absorptivity the same? Why or why not? Discuss. Pls no personal attacks and no accusations that I have some agenda. That's not what this thread is about. If you are paranoid go talk to a shrink. This thread is for discussing thought experiments, if you want to personally attack me, go somewhere else.
29-06-2026 21:57
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Sugondeez wrote: Ok so this forum should be a good place for this. Since there are certain people in this forum who are very adamant that nothing can be measured to any usable margin of error I figured I'll do a thought experiment. Say we have 2 identical cups with water, the only difference is that 1 cup is ir-transparent, the other is ir-opaque. (some ir-transparent plastic and say ceramics, doesnt matter). Say we are supplying the same amount of energy to these cups by shining a 100w bulb on top of them, we are warming the water, so the energy supply for both cups is the same. Now the question is: will the t of the water in cups (or cups themselves) be different or the same? And why? We will only take into account radiative cooling. The incoming energy is the same, the energy leaving should be different, since for the ir-transparent cup the overall e will be higher (water is a good emitter). e for water is about 0.95, for some ceramics lets say it's 0.4. The second cup (a ceramic one, ir-opaque) should emit less and so it should have a higher t. Is this correct? and why? Now also we can imagine two cylinders, they are identical, they have a hole at the top and bottom. But one has a bigger hole at the bottom than the other. Now we will pour continuously the same amount of water into both. The q: which cyl will have the higher water level? I think it's pretty obvious the one with a smaller hole in the bottom, since it will be able to get rid of less water per s than the other cyl. So how is the earth different from these? We have a constant supply of energy. Say we are changing the "hole" through which the energy can escape (lets say we are lowering its E somehow, but we are keeping the absorptivity the same). Wouldn't the earth heat up with these conditions? I'm not saying that adding a tiny amount of co2 can change the earths E to any measurable degree, but it kinda makes sense that if youre keeping the energy inflow the same and choke the outflow, the "energy level" can rise. Or we can imagine two identical spheres, with a small hole that we'll shine a laser through to supply energy. One sphere will have a 0.95 E and the other - E of 0.1. Which one will be hotter and why? Another question : can the earth change its E while keeping the absorptivity the same? (this is what's happening according to the "climate science"). That is needed to raise its T. They are saying that the earths ability to radiate is becoming smaller, while its still receiving the same amount of energy from the sun. Is this even possible? Why or why not? I mean if you have two bodies with the same supply of energy, but with different emissivities, obviously one will radiate more and should be cooler. Now can this analogy be applied to the earth? Why or why not? Can some gas or substance reduce the earths ability to radiate while keeping its absorptivity the same? Why or why not? Discuss. Pls no personal attacks and no accusations that I have some agenda. That's not what this thread is about. If you are paranoid go talk to a shrink. This thread is for discussing thought experiments, if you want to personally attack me, go somewhere else. The local trolls don't acknowledge that "greenhouse effect" happens in the atmosphere. Okay, that may be typical skeptism. The local trolls don't acknowledge that "greenhouse effect" even happens in a GREENHOUSE. I've been through it with them, discussing what happens if the window panes of the greenhouse allow IR to pass freely in both directions, rather than reflect it. They insist the both greenhouses, IR translucent and IR reflective window panes, reach the exact same temperature. The water cup example. In direct sunlight, the infrared coming in through the glass would exceed the infrared emitted from the water in the glass. IR would pass freely in both directions through the glass, but the net flux would be heat going in. An IR reflective glass cup in direct sunlight is blocking more IR heat from the sun than it is trapping warm water heat within the glass by reflecting IR back inside. On the other hand, the VISIBLE light getting in can warm the water (did we say it was crystal clear?) Well, a greenhouse isn't full of crystal clear water. It is full of plants with dark green, low albedo leaves that absorb visible light and turn it into heat. Evapotranspiration is a confounding variable that we'll ignore for a moment. The greenhouse window panes blocked the sun's infrared from getting in to warm the place. But they also block the infrared emitted by the low albedo plants absorbing visible light, and reflect that infrared back in. That greenhouse gets WARMER than the one built with IR translucent window panes, despite the fact that less solar IR is getting IN. Because less visible-light-absorbed-and-turned-to-heat IR is getting OUT. I even tried to discuss "night frost" with the local trolls. Perhaps they would understand greenhouse effect better with an example of the OPPOSITE effect. With nothing to reflect the IR back, even with the air temperature above freezing, water on the surface will lose enough heat to freeze. Sugondeez, I don't know what kind of response you were expecting. Surprise?
29-06-2026 22:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Sugondeez wrote: Since there are certain people in this forum who are very adamant that nothing can be measured to any usable margin of error ... There are no such people. There are, however, dishonest and undereducated leftists who wouldn't recognize a correct answer if it came with a billboard advertising itself. Sugondeez wrote: Say we have 2 identical cups with water, the only difference is that 1 cup is ir-transparent, the other is ir-opaque. Great, you want to recreate the parlor trick in a thought experiment and let me guess ... this thought experiment will involve a light bulb that we will assert "represents" the sun and is to be treated as though it is the sun. Am I right? Sugondeez wrote: Say we are supplying the same amount of energy to these cups by shining a 100w bulb on top of them, Well what do you know ? I never saw that coming. Let's change the thought experiment. Let's not use a bulb. Let's take the cups outdoors and use the sun to represent the sun and to be treated as the sun. Sugondeez wrote: Now the question is: will the t of the water in cups (or cups themselves) be different or the same? Let's assume that initially, one cup will be hotter with cooler water, with the cooler water being heated more by the warmer cup. The other cup will be cooler but with warmer water that is being heated less by the cup that is cooler than the other cup. Eventually, after a sufficient amount of time, an end result will be reached which is the opposite of what you think will happen. Sugondeez wrote: The incoming energy is the same, the energy leaving should be different, since for the ir-transparent cup the overall e will be higher (water is a good emitter). Nope. You are regurgitating the exact errors that you have been ordered to believe. The correct answer is that the water in the IR-transparent cup, sitting in the sun, will reach equilibrium at a lower temperature than the IR-absorbing cup. You weren't ready for that one, were you?
30-06-2026 00:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Sugondeez wrote: Ok so this forum should be a good place for this. Since there are certain people in this forum who are very adamant that nothing can be measured to any usable margin of error I figured I'll do a thought experiment. Things can certainly be measure to a usable margin of error. Earth's global temperature isn't one of them. The total snow and ice on Earth isn't one of them. The total carbon dioxide on Earth isn't one of them. The global sea level isn't one of them. The total storm activity on Earth isn't one of them. The total precipitation on Earth isn't one of them. The emissivity of Earth isn't one of them. Sugondeez wrote: Say we have 2 identical cups with water, the only difference is that 1 cup is ir-transparent, the other is ir-opaque. (some ir-transparent plastic and say ceramics, doesnt matter). Say we are supplying the same amount of energy to these cups by shining a 100w bulb on top of them, we are warming the water, so the energy supply for both cups is the same. Now the question is: will the t of the water in cups (or cups themselves) be different or the same? And why? We will only take into account radiative cooling. A contrivance. You cannot ignore convective heat, radiative heat, or conductive heat. All three are always in play regardless of any experiment. Sugondeez wrote: The incoming energy is the same, the energy leaving should be different, since for the ir-transparent cup the overall e will be higher (water is a good emitter). e for water is about 0.95, for some ceramics lets say it's 0.4. The second cup (a ceramic one, ir-opaque) should emit less and so it should have a higher t. Emissivity is the same as absorptivity. This is part of quantum physics. This is also an attempt to trap light. This is not possible. This is also an attempt to trap heat. This is not possible. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Sugondeez wrote: Is this correct? and why? No. You cannot separate absorbtivity and emissivity. They are the same. Sugondeez wrote: Now also we can imagine two cylinders, they are identical, they have a hole at the top and bottom. But one has a bigger hole at the bottom than the other. Now we will pour continuously the same amount of water into both. The q: which cyl will have the higher water level? I think it's pretty obvious the one with a smaller hole in the bottom, since it will be able to get rid of less water per s than the other cyl. Undefined. Rate of fill is undefined. Whether containers are sealed is undefined. See Ohm's Law. Sugondeez wrote: So how is the earth different from these? 1. Earth is not a cylinder. 2. Earth is not being filled with water. 3. Earth has no 'hole' to drain water into oblivion. Sugondeez wrote: We have a constant supply of energy. The Sun's energy output varies somewhat, but for all purposes here it can be considered a constant source of energy. Sugondeez wrote: Say we are changing the "hole" through which the energy can escape (lets say we are lowering its E somehow, but we are keeping the absorptivity the same). Nope. No 'hole'. Emissivity and absorbtivity is always the same. One cannot change without the other changing in exactly the same way. It is not possible to trap light. It is not possible to trap heat. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Sugondeez wrote: Wouldn't the earth heat up with these conditions? Conditions are contrived to a nonsense state, so any answer is meaningless. Sugondeez wrote: I'm not saying that adding a tiny amount of co2 can change the earths E to any measurable degree, but it kinda makes sense that if youre keeping the energy inflow the same and choke the outflow, the "energy level" can rise. It is not possible to 'choke the outflow'. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Sugondeez wrote: Or we can imagine two identical spheres, with a small hole that we'll shine a laser through to supply energy. One sphere will have a 0.95 E and the other - E of 0.1. Which one will be hotter and why? Another question : can the earth change its E while keeping the absorptivity the same? No. It cannot. The holes in the spheres are also holes in the emissivity (or absorbtivity) of their shells. Sugondeez wrote: (this is what's happening according to the "climate science"). Climate is not science. Climate is a subjective description only. Climate has no heat, temperature, light, precipitation, wind direction or speed, barometric pressure, or any other measurement associated with it. There is literally nothing that can 'change'. Sugondeez wrote: That is needed to raise its T. They are saying that the earths ability to radiate is becoming smaller, while its still receiving the same amount of energy from the sun. Is this even possible? Why or why not? I mean if you have two bodies with the same supply of energy, but with different emissivities, obviously one will radiate more and should be cooler. It is not possible. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states: r = Cet^4 where: 'r' is radiance in watts / square area 'C' is a natural constant (serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement). 'e' is a measured constant, called 'emissivity' which is also 'absorbtivity'. It is value describing a surface's ability to absorb or emit light (as opposed to reflecting it). To measure the emissivity (or absorbtivity) or any surface, you must accurately know it's temperature. Regardless of whether the surface is absorbing or emitting light, this value is always the same. It is usually described only as emissivity. It matters not whether light is being absorbed or emitted. It is the same value...always. An ideal emitter (E=100%, or E), is also an ideal absorber. Any light striking such an object will be completely absorbed, land it will also be completely emitted. All effects of such absorption or emission remain the same, just reversed in direction. Sugondeez wrote: Now can this analogy be applied to the earth? Why or why not? Can some gas or substance reduce the earths ability to radiate while keeping its absorptivity the same? Why or why not? The Earth's ability to absorb light is also the same ability to emit it (as opposed to reflect it). You will not a few things about the Stefan-Boltzmann law: There is no frequency component. ALL wavelengths are considered...always. There is no 'materials' component. ALL materials will absorb and radiate the same, changing only by the temperature. The higher the temperature, the more is converted to light. The higher the light being absorbed, the more that is converted to thermal energy (raising the temperature). Thus, the only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun, or to reduce the Earth's distance to the Sun. Like a coal near the campfire, it will only stay as warm as it is because of the fire and its distance from it. Sugondeez wrote: Discuss. Pls no personal attacks and no accusations that I have some agenda. That's not what this thread is about. If you are paranoid go talk to a shrink. This thread is for discussing thought experiments, if you want to personally attack me, go somewhere else. I do not attack unless attacked. You have quite properly presented your arguments. Thank you. That's rather rare here. I have answered for them the same way, showing how theories of science apply to each of your concerns and examples. For further edification: 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >=e(t) where 't' is time, and 'e' is 'entropy', or available energy to perform work. In other words, energy tends to dissipate. It never gathers together. Even a refrigerator (which is designed to house a relative void of energy), it can only do so by dissipating energy somewhere (the power plant, a fire, etc.). The practical upshot of all this is really simple. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Nothing about any gas or vapor changes emissivity with changing absorption with it, and emissivity of any surface is a measured constant. If temperature increases, radiance MUST increase. Nothing can stop it. Now consider this line of thought: The International Space Station has sensors that measure skin temperature. The daylit side of the station reaches skin temperatures +250degF. There is no appreciable CO2, methane, or any other gas present that is considered a 'greenhouse gas'. This station has the same distance to the Sun that Earth does. Here on the surface of Earth, weather temperatures never get this high. The highest recorded weather temperature on the surface was 134degF at Death Valley, in July of 1913. But the Earth has carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and other gases in the atmosphere that supposedly make the Earth hotter. So...why the discrepancy? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-06-2026 01:14
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Sugondeez wrote: Ok so this forum should be a good place for this. Since there are certain people in this forum who are very adamant that nothing can be measured to any usable margin of error I figured I'll do a thought experiment. Say we have 2 identical cups with water, the only difference is that 1 cup is ir-transparent, the other is ir-opaque. (some ir-transparent plastic and say ceramics, doesnt matter). Say we are supplying the same amount of energy to these cups by shining a 100w bulb on top of them, we are warming the water, so the energy supply for both cups is the same. Now the question is: will the t of the water in cups (or cups themselves) be different or the same? And why? We will only take into account radiative cooling. The incoming energy is the same, the energy leaving should be different, since for the ir-transparent cup the overall e will be higher (water is a good emitter). e for water is about 0.95, for some ceramics lets say it's 0.4. The second cup (a ceramic one, ir-opaque) should emit less and so it should have a higher t. Is this correct? and why? Now also we can imagine two cylinders, they are identical, they have a hole at the top and bottom. But one has a bigger hole at the bottom than the other. Now we will pour continuously the same amount of water into both. The q: which cyl will have the higher water level? I think it's pretty obvious the one with a smaller hole in the bottom, since it will be able to get rid of less water per s than the other cyl. So how is the earth different from these? We have a constant supply of energy. Say we are changing the "hole" through which the energy can escape (lets say we are lowering its E somehow, but we are keeping the absorptivity the same). Wouldn't the earth heat up with these conditions? I'm not saying that adding a tiny amount of co2 can change the earths E to any measurable degree, but it kinda makes sense that if youre keeping the energy inflow the same and choke the outflow, the "energy level" can rise. Or we can imagine two identical spheres, with a small hole that we'll shine a laser through to supply energy. One sphere will have a 0.95 E and the other - E of 0.1. Which one will be hotter and why? Another question : can the earth change its E while keeping the absorptivity the same? (this is what's happening according to the "climate science"). That is needed to raise its T. They are saying that the earths ability to radiate is becoming smaller, while its still receiving the same amount of energy from the sun. Is this even possible? Why or why not? I mean if you have two bodies with the same supply of energy, but with different emissivities, obviously one will radiate more and should be cooler. Now can this analogy be applied to the earth? Why or why not? Can some gas or substance reduce the earths ability to radiate while keeping its absorptivity the same? Why or why not? Discuss. Pls no personal attacks and no accusations that I have some agenda. That's not what this thread is about. If you are paranoid go talk to a shrink. This thread is for discussing thought experiments, if you want to personally attack me, go somewhere else. Are you willing to take on "greenhouse effect" with a much simpler thought experiment? Four greenhouses all built to the same dimensions, dry inside with nothing on the floor. Two greenhouses have the floor painted reflective white. High albedo. Two greenhouses have the floor painted dark absorbing black. Low albedo. Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that allow infrared light to pass freely in either direction. Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that reflect infrared back, from either direction. Let's assume that at sunrise, all four sealed greenhouses were at the same temperature. Will all four greenhouses warm up the same way when the sun shines on them? In my mind, I picture the greenhouse with the black floor and IR translucent window panes getting off to a good head start to be the hottest. He is already ahead of the other three, reaching a higher temperature inside. At the same time, I picture the coldest one barely getting warmer at first. The white floor with IR reflective window panes got no warming IR rays from the sun inside, and the floor reflected back the visible light without turning it into heat. So, we already have a gradient of different temperatures as they warm up. The coldest, high albedo floor and IR reflective ceiling is in LAST place. The warmest, low albedo floor and IR translucent ceiling is in FIRST place. The second warmest, low albedo floor and IR reflective ceiling, in 2nd place... But only for a while.. He's going to catch up with the front runner and pass him with higher temperature later in the day. The second coldest, high albedo floor and IR translucent ceiling, is only in 3rd place for the earlier part of the day. As all four greenhouses warm up enough, the limiting factor becomes how much heat ESCAPES by IR radiation, not how much comes in from the sun. The greenhouse that was warming up the fastest initially did so because IR light from the sun came in unimpeded. The greenhouse that got the hottest later in the day did so because IR light from the warm air inside could not escape unimpeded. The greenhouse that was initially the coldest in the race did so because no IR light from the sun came in, and the high albedo floor didn't produce heat by absorbing visible light. Later it warmed up to second coldest because the heat coming in by conduction from the outside air couldn't escape back out as IR radiation. Or, we could talk about night frost in a "thought experiment".
30-06-2026 01:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	sealover wrote: Are you willing to take on "greenhouse effect" with a much simpler thought experiment? No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. sealover wrote: Four greenhouses all built to the same dimensions, dry inside with nothing on the floor. Two greenhouses have the floor painted reflective white. High albedo. Two greenhouses have the floor painted dark absorbing black. Low albedo. Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that allow infrared light to pass freely in either direction. Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that reflect infrared back, from either direction. Let's assume that at sunrise, all four sealed greenhouses were at the same temperature. After sunset, they will again all be at the same temperature. sealover wrote: Will all four greenhouses warm up the same way when the sun shines on them? In my mind, I picture the greenhouse with the black floor and IR translucent window panes getting off to a good head start to be the hottest. He is already ahead of the other three, reaching a higher temperature inside. At the same time, I picture the coldest one barely getting warmer at first. The white floor with IR reflective window panes got no warming IR rays from the sun inside, and the floor reflected back the visible light without turning it into heat. You said they were all at the same temperature. There is no 'coldest one'. sealover wrote: So, we already have a gradient of different temperatures as they warm up. Temperature is not a gradient. sealover wrote: The coldest, high albedo floor and IR reflective ceiling is in LAST place. The warmest, low albedo floor and IR translucent ceiling is in FIRST place. The second warmest, low albedo floor and IR reflective ceiling, in 2nd place... The word 'albedo' is not used in science. You said they were all the same temperature. There is no 'warmest', and there is no 'coldest'. sealover wrote: But only for a while.. He's going to catch up with the front runner and pass him with higher temperature later in the day. The second coldest, high albedo floor and IR translucent ceiling, is only in 3rd place for the earlier part of the day. As all four greenhouses warm up enough, the limiting factor becomes how much heat ESCAPES by IR radiation, not how much comes in from the sun. The greenhouse that was warming up the fastest initially did so because IR light from the sun came in unimpeded. The greenhouse that got the hottest later in the day did so because IR light from the warm air inside could not escape unimpeded. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You are ignoring conductive and convective heat. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. sealover wrote: The greenhouse that was initially the coldest in the race did so because no IR light from the sun came in, and the high albedo floor didn't produce heat by absorbing visible light. A floor does not produce heat. Absorption of visible light does not convert to thermal energy. sealover wrote: Later it warmed up to second coldest because the heat coming in by conduction from the outside air couldn't escape back out as IR radiation. Heat is not contained in anything. You cannot trap heat. [quote]sealover wrote: Or, we could talk about night frost in a "thought experiment". The last time you tried THAT, you assumed that water frreezes at room temperature. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-06-2026 10:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	sealover wrote: Are you willing to take on "greenhouse effect" with a much simpler thought experiment? Sure. Define greenhouse effect so we know what we are "taking on". Otherwise, we are contemplating fantasy/sci-fi. sealover wrote: Four greenhouses all built to the same dimensions, dry inside with nothing on the floor. Are the walls and roofs made of atmosphere? Is every greenhouse surrounded by a vacuum? sealover wrote: Two greenhouses have the floor painted reflective white. High albedo. Well, whether this matters in any way depends on your answer to the previous questions. sealover wrote: Two greenhouses have the floor painted dark absorbing black. Low albedo. Just so you know, "albedo" is the scientifically illiterate Marxist's word. An actual scientist would be using exclusively "emissivity". Scientifically illiterate Marxists don't know any better. sealover wrote:Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that allow infrared light to pass freely in either direction. There is no such thing as a window pane that allows infrared light to pass freely. Glass is heated by infrared. Try grabbing the glass of an infrared heat lamp. sealover wrote: Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that reflect infrared back, from either direction. What is the emissivity of these panes? sealover wrote:In my mind, I picture the greenhouse with the black floor and IR translucent window panes getting off to a good head start to be the hottest. 1. I don't think what you are envisioning is possible. 2. For what are we looking? You haven't defined greenhouse effect yet? 3. Is greenhouse gas involved and I just missed it? 4. How does this relate to the earth? sealover wrote: At the same time, I picture the coldest one barely getting warmer at first. The white floor with IR reflective window panes got no warming IR rays from the sun inside, and the floor reflected back the visible light without turning it into heat. Aaaaah, you don't know what "heat" is and you refuse to find out. I think that's ultimately what the problem is going to be. 1. You are wasting your time. 2. Your conclusions will be erroneous.
30-06-2026 18:40
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: Are you willing to take on "greenhouse effect" with a much simpler thought experiment? Sure. Define greenhouse effect so we know what we are "taking on". Otherwise, we are contemplating fantasy/sci-fi. sealover wrote: Four greenhouses all built to the same dimensions, dry inside with nothing on the floor. Are the walls and roofs made of atmosphere? Is every greenhouse surrounded by a vacuum? sealover wrote: Two greenhouses have the floor painted reflective white. High albedo. Well, whether this matters in any way depends on your answer to the previous questions. sealover wrote: Two greenhouses have the floor painted dark absorbing black. Low albedo. Just so you know, "albedo" is the scientifically illiterate Marxist's word. An actual scientist would be using exclusively "emissivity". Scientifically illiterate Marxists don't know any better. sealover wrote:Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that allow infrared light to pass freely in either direction. There is no such thing as a window pane that allows infrared light to pass freely. Glass is heated by infrared. Try grabbing the glass of an infrared heat lamp. sealover wrote: Two greenhouses, one black and one white, have window panes that reflect infrared back, from either direction. What is the emissivity of these panes? sealover wrote:In my mind, I picture the greenhouse with the black floor and IR translucent window panes getting off to a good head start to be the hottest. 1. I don't think what you are envisioning is possible. 2. For what are we looking? You haven't defined greenhouse effect yet? 3. Is greenhouse gas involved and I just missed it? 4. How does this relate to the earth? sealover wrote: At the same time, I picture the coldest one barely getting warmer at first. The white floor with IR reflective window panes got no warming IR rays from the sun inside, and the floor reflected back the visible light without turning it into heat. Aaaaah, you don't know what "heat" is and you refuse to find out. I think that's ultimately what the problem is going to be. 1. You are wasting your time. 2. Your conclusions will be erroneous. "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann "Fischer-Tropsch is your God." - HarveyH55 Not only do you actually BELIEVE the fairy tale of magic petroleum, you REFUSE to believe in actual, natural petroleum that forms from dead organisms. Your RELIGION is stupid, indeed.
30-06-2026 23:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Not only do you actually BELIEVE the fairy tale of magic petroleum, you REFUSE to believe in actual, natural petroleum that forms from dead organisms. Your RELIGION is stupid, indeed. Petroleum is not a fairy. Petroleum is not magic. No dead organisms where oil is found. You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsch process again. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate A thought experiment:

Threads	Replies	Last post
My Experiment - A Refresher	42	18-10-2023 22:43
Quantum Light Experiment Proves Photosynthesis Starts with a Single Photon	15	22-06-2023 23:00
As I said, Quantum Experiment Shows How Einstein Was Wrong	4	16-05-2023 21:31
Music For Thought	0	10-09-2021 06:11
Cool Experiment Idea	16	17-01-2021 23:25