The (Copper) Iron Green House Revisited

Other posts on this subject
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-copper-greenhouse-new-test.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-copper-greenhouse.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-cool-object-reduces-energy-loss-from.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/does-thermal-radiation-travel-from-cool.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/cool-body-can-transfer-measurable-heat.html

The iron greenhouse energy budget

 
The tests trying to produce some replication of Willis's Iron greenhouse have been repeated using a multichannel thermocouple probe recorder measuring to 0.01°C (accuracy 1°C) and somewhat modified test setup.

The sensor has been modified to make it more responsive (less copper in the plate than in the original cone. Fine wire thermocouple used to reduce the heat conduction.

 The insulated hot box uses much thicker insulation and the double sided grey sprayed copper plate temperature is monitored using another fine wire thermocouple. The temperature between the 2 IR windows and outside the window is now measured. A small fan is used to provide a continuous stream of ambient air between the hot box and the sensor to prevent conduction and convection effects upsetting the sensor reading. The heating voltage is maintained to 9.254 volts +-3mV ensuring constant power input to the hot body.

The object of the experiment is not to replicate EXACTLY the steel greenhouse thought experiment. For a starter the hot object is only "surrounded" on one side and the major loss of heat from the object is via conduction through the insulation. There is obviously conduction and convection occurring in the experiment which are prevented by using a vacuum in the thought experiment.

Inside of Hotbox

Table-top setup

Grey painted Plate Insertion:

What is expected is a significant increase in the hot body temperature when the grey plate is inserted. The Sensor should report a drop in temperature until the system has reached equilibrium It should then be at the same level as before the grey plate was inserted - I.e. the radiation from the hot box should be constant before and after grey plate insertion.

Reflective plate insertion

The rise in temperature of the hot body should now be significantly hotter than either no plate or grey plate (100% of forward facing IR should now be reflected back onto the hot body causing the temperature to rise until the additional energy balance can be restored.
The sensor should show a drop in heat for the time that the reflective plate is in position.

Method

1. During the test the voltage applied to the resistors heating the hot body is monitored and maintained within +-3mV of the nominal (giving a power variability of 0.065%)
2. The test setup was run monitoring  temperatures for about 10 hours. 
3. The recorded results were then analysed over a period when the ambient was most stable (after sunset).
4. To allow for ambient vatiation the measured forced ventilation temperature in front of the IR window was smoothed and then subtracted from the hot body temperature.

Results
The first temperature rise is with a reflective plate  and the second rise is with a grey painted copper plate inserted between hot body and IR window. The low temperatures are when no intermediate plate is inserted.
The air outside the IR window plot (green) is the temperature as measured from the forced airflow. The corrected temperatures refer to measured temperature less the air temperature.

The temperature of the Hot Body shows results as expected - maximum temperature from reflective plate lower temperature from grey plate lowest temperature from no plate.

The measured temperature (= IR output) from the sensor does not agree with expected result..

With the grey plate not equalling the hot body temperature there would be expected lower IR emission so perhaps this could explain the lower temperature compared to no plate.

With the reflective plate the IR output does not go to zero. possibly the plate warms and the insulation is insufficient. The IR sensor needs to be improved - possibly an IR thermometer? But will these then read the temperature of the IR windows?

So the results show
A definite increase in hot body temperature if a reflective plate is used  (5.5°C)
A definite increase in hot body temperature if a grey plate is used  (3.5°C)

If you believe that backradiation or reflection cannot add energy to the hot body from which the radiation originates then these results alone disprove this belief.

Back Radiation Early Results - No Fan

Using the setup of the previous post
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/proposed-back-radiation-test-setup.html
 but with no fan and no shadow dot used the following results have been obtained.
(x-axis is in seconds from start of test - many tests were done and recorded over about 12 hours - the main problem is trying to keep ambient constant or at least clear of low frequency noise)

Detrended by the air gap temperature between double glazed and single IR window the plot shows that with Warm source in place Hot body is 0.3°C hotter than when ambient source is in place

This shows a continuous recording of the warm source temperature - the Red line indicates that the source is facing the IR windows -  the dotted lines indicate that it has been placed away from the IR windows. No attempt has been made to stabilise the warm source temperature - It simply has to be above ambient and below the hot plate temperature.

This plot shows the detrended temperature of the air between the double glazed IR window

This plot shows the air between the double glazed window and the isolated IR window. Note that it shows no sign of being warmed by the warm source. The trend is because of ambient changes. This trend was removed from the "detrended"  plots

It should be noted that the radiation from the warm plate has to pass through 3 layers of poly film to reach the hot plate. In a previous post
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/does-thermal-radiation-travel-from-cool.html.
I showed that this food wrap (LDPE) is not 100% transparent to IR.


Again I am certain that the hot body temperature increase is caused by the IR from the warm source.

Again criticism of the experiment is welcomed!

Full recorded data is available.

other posts on this subject:
http://www.climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-copper-greenhouse-new-test.html
http://www.climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-copper-greenhouse.html
http://www.climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-cool-object-reduces-energy-loss-from.html

Proposed back radiation test setup - comments?

4 Thermocouples simultaneously monitored
  a. internal temperature of double glazing gap
  b. temperature in gap between external unsealed IR window. IR shield shadows the sensor from the external IR
  c. hot temperature plate (internal)
  d. warm plate (external) ambient plate temperature is not measured.

Fan blowing ambient air between the double glazing and the separate window. This is to reduce thermal conduction and convection from a different warm/cool source affecting the ambient at the outside of the double glazed window.

Angled BB absorber at back of external source (angled to prevent reflection affecting hot plate.

Lining of polished aluminium foil to prevent IR penetrating the insulation foam.

Voltage input to external warm plate heater is stable but differing ambient and convection/conduction will change its temperature - All this needs to do is provide a temperature less than the hot plate and greater than ambient - so the variation is not important.

The voltage to the hot plate heater is also controlled (by a professional Power supply) the temperature reached is approximately 70°C and the variation with external plate at ambient / warm will be less than a couple of °C. The change in the high quality resistors value will be negligible. So constant voltage equates to constant power..

Any comments before trying this set-up

The Copper Greenhouse - new test

A rerun with improved sensor and reflective plate.

1. A grey plate should give "back radiation" and equal radiation outwards
2. A reflective plate should reflect all radiation back to heater and emit zero outwards
3. No plate should pass all radiation outwards.


Case 1. is the equivalent of the steel greenhouse of Willis Eschenbach and should cause the heater to run hotter and the emitted radiation to be the same as if the plate was not there.

Case 2. simply reflects all radiation back to the heater which should then heat up to a temperature limited by losses from conduction through the box

Case 3. Radiation from the plate facing the IR window should pass through unhindered. The heater temperature will be controlled by conduction losses and radiation losses through the window.

The experiment cannot be expected to exactly simulate the Iron Greenhouse. It should be able to show radiation through the window roughly constant between case 1 and case 2 but temperature of the heater being higher in 1. It should also show the heater reaching a higher temperature in case 2 than case 1.

The new better insulated sensor:

Additional IR window. Improved all round insulation.

The Heat Box

The results:

Note that only one temperature probe could be measured a  time thus giving the gaps in the records.
1. The grey plate allows the heater to warm to a temperature above the no plate temperature (76.8°C compared to 74.9°C)
2. the grey plate and no plate emitted energy warms the SENSOR to similar temperatures i.e. 25.5 compared to 25.6°C i.e. the emitted energy through the window is similar.
3. The reflective plate allows the heater to warm to the highest temperature with low emission of energy (sensor warmed from a background of 22°C to 23.9°C

This again shows what was expected by the existence of back radiation allowing the heater to reach a higher temperature.

Other posts on this subject
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-copper-greenhouse.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-cool-object-reduces-energy-loss-from.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/does-thermal-radiation-travel-from-cool.html
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/cool-body-can-transfer-measurable-heat.html

The Copper Greenhouse

An attempt to test Willis Eschenbach's Steel greenhouse.

This is not meant to replicate exact mathematical values - impossible withot a lot more work and area! - it is simply to test if thermally conductive but thermally opaque plates cause anomalous temperature rise on the heater.

It should be noted that if the ambient were at 200C instead of 20C then there would still be 1.88 watts heating it up from the ambient.  1.88 watts produces a temperature increase of 50C above AMBIENT

Basically: a nuclear core generates 235W/sqm will emit 235 W/sqm to space Surround this with a steel shell  When the system has reached stability the shell (which is the same surface area (approx) as the core emits the generated 235 watts (if it did not then the system would not be at stability). However the shell must emit the same quantity of radiation from both sides. the inward flux is the same as the outward at 235 W/sqm. The core must therefore heat up in order that the shell now receives 235+235 W/sqm I.e. the core is emitting 470W/sq m See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/ This test simplifies the greenhouse to a heater and copper plate the same size as the heater. All measurements are made using a digital thermometer with a resolution of 0.1degC The heat box is similar to that used before - just 2 layers of aluminium foil backed thermal insulation added to outside of box. A removable thin copper sheet, painted grey, is either hung in front of the heater or removed from the box. The sensor is placed at exactly 15mm from front of insulation round box. The temperatures of the hot plate and the sensor are unfortunately affect fractionally by room temperature - This is visible in the results below  Heating began from room temperature 21C. It reaches a stable temperature of 73.6degC with the copper sheet present and 72.2 degC with the plate absent. The sensor temperature at the point the copper sheet was removed was 21.6degC the final temperature measured by the sensor was 22.2degC The emissions from the hot box is therefore no less with the copper removed compared to with the copper in place despite the change in hot plate temperature. The new setup - This allows for 2 copper plates to be hung between the heater and the fron IR double glazed window One of the plates can be replaced with  a single plastic IR transmissive sheet. Note All hanging sheets are approximately the same size as the heater. The heater is dissipating 1.88 Watts Box Dimensions 137x130x80 mm - external 80x80x40 mm - internal  heated plate and hanging sheet dimensions 35x35x6 mm approx The results - Room temperature controlled to +-1deg C Here we see that with 2 copper plates the temperature is 75.7degC The sensor in front of the IR window measures 23.25degC With 1 copper plate the temperature is 75.1degC The sensor in front of the IR window measures 23.6degC With 1 copper plate the temperature is 74.05degC The sensor in front of the IR window measures 24.6degC With 1 IR transparent plastic plate the temperature is 74.5degC The sensor in front of the IR window measures 23.6degC The most significant results here are the 1 copper plate vs the 1 IR transmissive plastic plate.  The disturbance caused by inserting a plate is the same in both cases but the heater runs 0.6degC hotter It is interesting that 2 plates allow the heater to reach a higher temperature than just one (as the iron gh predicts) Unless the iron greenhouse is accepted I do not see how this result could be explained. Errors - GHGs are present The heater is loosing heat to the back wall There is not a vacuum between heater and plate. The box still looses too much heat through its sides. Ambient has too much effect. From  https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/entering-the-skydragons-lair/comment-page-3/ lgl says: March 23, 2013 at 4:42 pm thefordprefect  why didn’t you use bigger plates, all the way to the walls so that hot air couldn’t leak from the warm side to the cold side? ------------- TFP:  this would have changed the radiating area, I felt it best to keep the plate close to the heater and for the area radiating to be constant so the ir window restrictive size would have similar effect. --------------------------------------- A C Osborn says: March 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm Sorry, your results appear to completely disprove the iron ball/shell theory unless you can show by calculation that 50% of the radiation from the Heat Source equals a rise in the temperature of the heat source of only approximately 1.25 degC.  Do you really think that the 1.25 degC increase in the heat source represents the 50% increase in the iron ball temperature from the Willis theory? ----------------------------- TFP: This sort of real world kitchen table top experiment in no way can  EXACTLY replicate the iron greenhouse thought experiment. As I said in the write up, perhaps the most important thing is the the 2 single plate runs the internal stucture of the warm box is the same (a restrictive plate changes the convection in the box in a similar way, so what explains the 0,6degC rise in temperature when the copper plate is present? I was not looking for exact energy flows (for example I knew that the IR windows are not 100% transmissive, I knew the box is loosing heat through its walls, I do not know what the thermal capacity of the heater is, etc. All this is experiment does (and was expected to do) is show a warming where there shousd according to the slayers be none ------------------ A C Osborn says: March 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm The temperature rose because the interior conditions of the box have been changed.  For instance the GHGs (air) between the heat source and the plate could have been heated more due to Reflected radiation from the plate, which is not a perfect black body and not re-emitted radiation, which in turn would heat up the source slightly. --------------------------------- TFP yes the internal conditions have change but that is why I tried a IR "invisible" plate in place of the copper. The IR loss in this plate did cause a slight warming of the heater but no where near as much as the single copper plate. but also remember that the plate will be cooler than the heater and slayer theory says energy cannot travel from cooler to hotter! ------------------------------- tallbloke says: March 23, 2013 at 5:23 pm Right up until the last line I was with you. ------------------------ TFP mmmmm! I suppose you are right I'll modify that! removed!! I believe that this shows that willis's iron greenhouse model is likely to be valid. Some bolometer stuff http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~kenworthy/teaching/dol2011/10_DOL_Bolometers.pdf http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~kenworthy/teaching/dol2011/11_DOL_Bolometers_part_2.pdf Some radiative transfer stuff: http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet%27s%20experiment.pdf A good description at the end! The final proof? Some really silly stuff: http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/

A Cool Object Reduces Energy loss from a Hot Object

A quick post as the method needs changing.

A heated plate in a well insulated box with 2 IR transmissive windows.
A small window for thermal camera measurements
A larger window to allow passage of IR from/to an external Plate

All wires passing through the insulated box have wires looped and buried in thermal insulation to reduce conduction.
The external plate is 9cm from the IR window. There is no enclosure round the external plate so convection will have no effect on  the internal plate.
Each IR window is double glazed with cling film with an air gap of 2cm.

The internal plate is warmed by a resistor network (12 resistors) evenly spaced on the reverse of the plate (away from window) dissipating a total power of 1.88 watts.

The system was setup as indicated with a ambient temperature external plate and allowed to stabilise (unfortunately not log enough).
The external plate was then replaced with a warm identical plate. This was then allowd to cool.
The cold plate warm plate cycle was repeated. (this time temperatures had stabilised)



External Plate view

Thermal Camera View



Overall view showing holder for external plate

Note that 1st measurement did not allow sufficient time for temperature to stabilise

This shows a significant increase in temperature when the warm plate is in position (0.3C)

NOTE This is not increasing the temperature of the heated plate it is just adding energy to the plate. This therefore is has to warm since the total power input to the plate is greater.

During the last sequence the ambient was measured at a constant 19C

Note IR camera temperatures have been corrected by changing standard emissivit of 0.92 to 0.54 to allow for 2 layers of cling film.

The external plate also has had a double layer of cling film placed between it and the camera.

hot plate on right IR window on Left

IR window on left Cold plate on right (only just visible against background)

Box Dimensions 127x120x80 mm

Internal space 80x80x40 mm



heated plate dimension (Forgot to measure before sealing in compartment)

35x35x6 mm approx

Plate centre is monitored by an attached thermocouple (not used in this test)

This is another experiment showing that a cool object can add energy to a hotter object!

This needs to be repeated with a self heating external object to show that internal temperature will stabilise at a higher value.

Does Thermal Radiation Travel From Cool To Hot Bodies

The Background

There is a belief that the cold atmosphere with CO2 (and other Green House Gases - GHGs) cannot keep the earth warmer than if there were no GHGs. A good source of these comments are WUWT
Michael Moon says: February 6, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Silver Ralph,

You just flunked your first hourly in Thermo. The cooler radiator would be warmed by the warmer radiator, and begin radiating more. If you think this would warm the warmer radiator, then you will fail all your hourlies and never get through school.
Wilis, Joe Public has it exactly right. If you want to know what happens to the flux from a cooler source when it hits a warmer source, the answer is exactly nothing. It is not absorbed, but immediately re-emitted, transferring NO heat.
All these analogies are amusing but ignore Second Law.

The sticking point is usually verbalised as "you cannot warm a hot object with a cool object".  And this is true, but you can slow down the cooling of a hot object by placing a cooler object (that is warmer than the background) next to it.

Radiation travels in straight lines – generally! – and when it leaves the cool object it does not know whether it will hit a hotter or cooler object. It is only the albedo that will determine how much  radiation is reflected or absorbed by the objecty it hits and albedo changes little with temperature in the range considered in climatology.

In the extremes:
If it is a mirror finish in wavelengths considered then no radiation will be absorbed (and since emissivity usually parallels albedo then no radiation will be emitted);
If it is a true black body at the wavelength considered then all radiation hitting it from whatever source will be absorbed (and similary emitted - according to its temperature).

Note that a body may reflect at one wavelength but absorb at another. This effect is not considered here.

Radiation passes both ways from the hot body to the cool AND from the cool body to the hot, the additional energy from the cool body will reduce the net energy flow from the hotter and the hot body will therefore cool more slowly. The radiation from the hot body will reduce the net energy flow from the cool but additionally may actually put more radiation into the cool than is being emitted, thus heating the cool body.
From the above it stands to reason that if both bodies have unchanging internal or external sources of energy  then the hot body temperature will reach a final temperature higher than if the cool body were not present.
Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules do not significantly absorb or emit LW radiation.


Note that the vertical scale is logarithmic each division represents a 10x increase in effect
An atmosphere without GHGs will not impede incoming or outgoing radiation significantly. The body of the earth will receive full solar radiation and it surface would heat up to a temperature that will, as a near black body, radiate the same quantity of radiation directly to space at a temperature of  2.7K (i.e. -270°C).

In addition to the solar radiation the body of the earth would receive radiation from the 2.7K temperature of space.

GHGs absorb some  of the long wave infra red radiation from the body of the earth. These will then almost instantly emitted in all directions. After multiple absorptions and re-emissions there will be effectively 50% up and 50% down. The downward radiation ( “back radiation”) will be from an atmosphere much warmer than the 2.7K of space. The total radiation hitting the earth will be solar+back radiation+2.7K from space. With a warm GHG atmosphere the net radiation is still to space but the body of the earth is receiving addition energy from the GHGs and so will be warmer.

Without GHGs there is very little radiation from the rest of the atmosphere - O2 N2 etc absorb and emit little radiative energy (they will of course conduct and convect). But a gas atmosphere without GHGs will not radiate to space. The body of the earth will of course cool since this will STILL radiate - its radiation passing straight through the O2 N2 molecules.
This experiment attempts prove or disprove the supposition that a warm object cools more slowly in the presence of a cool object (warmer than background but cooler than the hot object).

The test setup:

The sidewalls are approximately 150mm high and the whole unit rests on a wooden bench.

The double layer cling film barrier attempts to stabilise the environment around the hot plate when the cool side changes from a warm object to background condition. It is intended to isolate the hot plate from conduction and convection on the cool side whilst passing IR radiation.

The two plates were heated using a hot air gun. The hot plate is heated to well above the maximum range limit for the camera (120°C). The temperature is then allowed to drop to 120°C whilst the environment stabilised

The temperature difference between hot and warm plates was approximately 18°C at the start of measurement. At 120°C the camera records a sequence at 6.5 frames per second with maximum noise reduction (ie the cameras internal algorithm averages out noise on  the measurements). A reasonably high data rate is chosen to allow averaging to be applied to the data if necessary. 

The picture shows the setup with hot and warm plates (18°C temperature difference) facing each other through a “double glazed” convection and conduction barrier (the vertical black line on the left). The temperature shown between plates is the wall temperature not the air temperature (see earlier post showing that air and water vapour are not picked up on the thermal camera http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/water-vapour-and-thermal-imaging.html)

The wall temperature on the hot side is 43.9°C – this is the temperature of the wall approximately 250 seconds after heating was stopped.

This picture shows the no warm plate scenario approximately 230 seconds from heating having stopped. Note that the wall temperature in the hot compartment - 44.7°C is similar to that in the hot/warm setup - 43.9°C.  The open side of the setup is facing a matt black surface at approximately 21°C. The data from the run is extracted using suitably placed measurement areas on the 2 plates:

Only area AR02 is of interest – the hot plate temperature – although any area can be analysed after recording.

The temperature of each pixel in the defined area (6x19 pixels approximately) is averaged.

The two runs provide series of data with the hot plate cooling from approximately 120°C to 50°C with temperatures measured every 154ms.

The rate of cooling should be the same when cooling from the same temperature with or without the warm plate if the statement "You can slow down the cooling of a hot object by placing a cooler object (that is warmer than the background) next to it" is not true.

The two curves have to be aligned such that at one time period the two temperatures are identical. This is manually adjusted in the spreadsheet (available on request). 120.0431°C (with warm plate) and 120.0784°C (no warm plate) are the closest match temperatures These are at a time of approximately 1 minute from start of recoding.

A second plot has been produced that is sychronised at 67°C. This shows that the result is not just anomaly caused by the heating process

A total of 5700 results per run were obtained and analysed

The Results:

synchronised to 120°C

Synchronised to 67°C

Conclusion

From this it seems clear that when a hot and warm plate are interacting radiatively, the hot plate cools significantly slower than if there is no warm plate.

If the initial data up to 600seconds is ignored there is still an increasing deviation in the plot showing the plate is not cooling as quickly. Obviously the hot plate does not get hotter - it still cools, but at a slower rate!

Does the thermal barrier pass Infra Red?

The photo below shows the with and without temperature of a hand measured with the camera (it should be noted that the camera response does not extend over the whole IR range – only 2µm to 13µm). The temperature difference shows that 2 layers of "cling film" absorb a significant amount of IR but not ALL of it (hand temperature with clingfilm is 30.2°C and without 35°C ) In order to bring the temperatures of the hand back to 35°C the emissivity correction in the camera has to be changed from 0.92 to 0.58.

RADIATION FROM A COOL BODY SLOWS THE COOLING OF A HOTTER BODY
Notes: Sources of error Cooling of hotplate will be affected by:

• Conducted and convective heat loss. These have been minimised by the barrier and the 4 sided corregated card enclosure.
• Room temperature variation Temperature was measured at 21C before and after each run.
• Air currents. Minimised by the enclosure and the bench location
• Radiation from hot surfaces (including the cling film window). This should be the same for both runs (note tat these temperatures will be less than the hot plate so could be considered to be part of the experiment.

Inaccuracies - Most are neglegible:

• The camera self calibrates before the start of each run.
• Internal temperature of camera changes during run - because this is a continuous recording the usual timed self calibration is stopped. It is possible that drift may occur. This was minimised by allowing 60 minutes warm up and a fixed ambient temperature. Also both runs would suffer from similar drift.
• The absolute temperature accuracy will not affect results as the same temperature range is measured

Confirmation bias:
I  obviously would like to show proof of the statements made in the introduction, however the results are extracted and plotted by a simple spread sheet which can be made available, There is no manual operation at this stage.
Calculations are simple and carried out on both sets of data identically

All I can say is that these are the results obtained from this simple experiment without modification.

Please criticise and suggest improvements either email or comment (be_very_careful[at)hotmaildotcom)

Additional stuff.

The results seemed too good to be true so I extracted the data from slightly different areas and redid the spreadsheet calculations.

Note different shape of plate sense areas and AR03 sensing back wall temp on hot side

Synchronising to 120deg C at time 0 Absolute temperature  - note backwall temperatures now included

Synchronised to 120C diffenece between hot plate and warm plate and hot only setups

Resynchronising at 76degC at time zero Absolute temperature

Still get widening temperature gap showing coolingof a hot plate is slowed by a warm plate

So again these 2 runs analysed differently show that a cool object (warmer than background) can slow the cooling of a hot plate

----------------------------------------



Thoughts for a repeat:

Continuous monitoring of ambient temperature.

Enclose hot plate in box of constructed with thermal insulation with 2 sides of cling film (limits heat loss to mainly IR).

Put constant power into the hot plate (fixed voltage across a resistor) Measure temperature with thermocouple - set to approximately 80C when facing ambient.

With hot plate facing plate atambient temperature

Allow temperature to stabilise

Remove ambient plate (possibly now above ambient)

Replace with warm plate at 70C initially

Allow temperature to "stabilise" should rise then fall as the warm plate cools

Remove warm plate leaving side open to ambient. 

Allow temperature to stabilise
 

Possible problem is the not quite thermally transparent cling film. - as this heats it will begin radiating. 

Improvement suggestions?



"Saving Humanity" or "Where's my Handout"

No one actually 100% understand how the climate works -  I think this is a fair statement.

So ask yourself is it SAFE to experiment with the only place we can live when you have

• No idea what the controls do
• Whether there are unknown controls
• What the linkage is between controls
• If it is a linear system
• If there are "tipping points"
• little idea of what positive feedbacks and their magnitudes are
• little idea of what negative feedbacks and their magnitudes are
• Only 200 years of prior data that is vaguely reliable.

And of course

• It takes 30+ years for the effect of each experimental tweak of a control to become clear
• It takes longer than 30+ years for the effect of the tweak to dissipate (much longer if you trigger an ice age).  
• It is not just YOUR hand tweaking the controls - there are other humans and natural inputs simultaneously affecting your experiment.
• Each experiment is disastrously expensive.

Even Watts believes that CO2 is causing warming and some of that is from anthropogenic sources. He just believes it is irrelevant.

Here's a plot with all data zeroed:

Note how small the swings in TSI are.
A couple of Kelvin increase in 288K may seem small but the wealthy nations rely on stability. We no longer have an easy option of migrating to colder/warmer areas, moving our dwellings from the shores of continents as they get inundated (see doggerland! on wiki).

The inhabitants of doggerland simply packed their dwellings took their pots and moved uphill. This would be a trifle more difficult now.

It is not even possible to say leave it until we are sure that there is a problem - the built in time constants ensure that by the time we are sure and take action there will be another multi-decade of environmental changes before we see the effect of our corrections.
I think it is very telling that from all the revelations from "climate gate" and other hacks not ONCE have I seen any one pointing out any climate scientists email (which it is obvious the scientists thought were and always will be private) which suggests that they have vast wealth to spend on themselves.
Watts seems very delighted at having access to a private blog on sks where he foams at the mouth over this snippet:

============================

And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

  

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

  

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

==============================================

To me it sound a bit like "saving humanity" not "where's my handout".

  

Confirmation of the Green House Effect

The Effect of CO2 on IR

The Setup
Volume of trapped air in Vacuum Flask 541ml

Air is in a vacuum thermal flask made of double skin stainless steel designed for isolation of liquid from external temperature influence

IR Absorber used to collect IR is 18g matt black anodised corrugated aluminium rectangular block 40mm by 44mm

Distance from end of tube to top of absorber is 128mm

IR Transmitter is 49mm diameter matt black aluminium

Thermal conduction isolation provide by 135mm tube with internal convection cooling internal diameter 49mm

Air exchange isolation provided by  low density polyethylene (LDPE “cling film”)

Test Set up

Method

1       Temperature recorded at 1 second intervals using an eight channel USB thermocouple interface

2       Apparatus set up as shown but with the IR transmitter isolated from the system. The Internal volume of the vacuum flask was filled with room temperature air (RH approx 50%). The flask then had 60ml of CO2 injected (3 lots of 20ml) (This increases the concentration of CO2 but not to the full 60ml as each injection would displace some of the already injected CO2).

3       IR Transmitter maintained at greater than 100C whilst thermocouple temperatures stabilised

4       When stability reached IR transmitter cooled to 101C and placed on top of tube

5       Temperature of IR transmitter maintained as stable as possible at approximately 100°C during the heating of the gas to greater than 25°C

6       The IR source was removed and the vacuum flask air replaced with room air (using a small fan).

7       The system was then cooled by placing ice cubes in a glass on the LDPE film on the vacuum flask.

8       The system was then reassembled but without the IR source.

9       The air temperature was the allowed to stabilise.

9       The test method was repeated until the air temperature was above 25°C

10     The Air in the flask was then enhanced with CO2 and cooled again, repeating the same method as above

11     The same method was also run (with CO2 and normal done in reverse order) on a previous occasion. 

The Results:

1       Using the last 2 runs (room air then CO2 enhanced room air) and measuring the slope of temperature rise per second at around 25°C shows a significant increase with more CO2

2       Also the temperature array record a smaller spread with increased CO2.

Conclusion
CO2 in these two instances caused between 6 and 10% greater heating rate
The temperature gradient of the "air" is the reverse of what would be expected with convection or radiation (the higer up the flask the probe the cooler the air)


http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
373K
Radiant emmittance: 1097.64 W/m2
Radiance: 349.389 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance: 29.5722 W/m2/sr/µm
Wavelength of peak: 7.76877 µm

298k
Radiant emmittance: 447.186 W/m2
Radiance: 142.344 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance: 9.62545 W/m2/sr/µm
Wavelength of peak: 9.724 µm

100C source is 135mm+125mm-45mm from top thermocouple
top thermocouple is 45 mm from re-radiator
The heating effect of the top 100C source is therefore reduced by 45^2/ 215^2

The green trace below is radiation from the 101C  source.
The Blue trace is the upward long wave radiation from the 25C collector.

http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

CO2 3 times more absorption at 4um than 15um

BB radiation curve shows that 4um absorption and 16um absorption are similar when sensitivity is considered

101C curve always adds less energy to CO2 than 25C re-radiator at 45mm Sensor. The difference will increase as the sensor distance from the re-radiator decreseas