If it was able to reach a higher temperature, then we just created “free energy”.
The issue with the whole “greenhouse” thingy, is the starting temperature.
If, the starting temperature is -18c, then indeed we have a very remarkable atmosphere and ocean system. It’s doing a fine job of providing 33c.
If we have a starting point of 5c (to pick a number) we have a otherwise also awesome atmosphere/oceans, but they are WAY less important to the overall energy balance.
The way I see it right now is the models are having all sorts of problems because the starting temperature is potentially wrong.
To your point of spending money on this; I found a guy who did his thesis on modelling exoplanets.
He created an entire python library for it.
Being the “knows enough to be dangerous” kind of computerfile, I was thinking of engaging his services to create the missing model.
The only reference I could find to someone actually modelling a “bare earth” sans atmosphere et al, was a reference to Dennis Hartmann in a 1994 book “Global Physical Climatology” chapter 8, where according to chatGPT, he claimed to have confirmed the -18c in a computer model.
I had a go at trying to get the pdf, but you know how that goes.
I still object to it however. Chapter 8? For crying out loud! When pressed, chatGPT couldn’t quote it, and otherwise said it was using Stefan-Blotzmann equations afterall.
Hi @lexej ,
Welcome to the Forum!
It sounds like you know a thing or two on the subject. That’s indeed welcome.
These posts will probably be moved to another thread, but I am sure no one is going to object to your input.
What do you make of the Stefan-Blotzmann (modified) equation being used to model the entire planet, when it seems reasonable to me that an simulation could be run (in this age of beyond “super-computers”)?
I find it bizarre, after a week of fruitless searches, that I don’t see anything close to a simulation of this basic assumption of the greenhouse model.
Are you aware of anyone who has modelled the earth, with all it’s quite well known properties, to confirm the starting temperature of -18C?
Genuine enquiry here. I am all of a week or so old on actually looking into any of this.
Hmm it’s not quite the question.
Say without lid and without foil the surface temperature is T1.
With lid without foil: T2
With lid and foil: T3
Is T1 = T2 = T3? Or is T2 > T1 and T3 > T2?
Hmm the point of point 11 is that if the temperature without atmosphere would be -18C, then adding an atmosphere would not be able to raise this temperature because then the externally heated object (the atmosphere) would be increasing the temperature of its heat source (the -18C surface).
Hi @lexej and welcome.
I pose the same question to you (Experiment: Can an externally heated object actually heat its heat source? - #15 by claudiu): what do you predict will be the result of this hot plate / glass dome / foil experiment?
It depends on the input energy.
T1: let’s say it to 150f. (No idea what that means, I have little experience converting from “bald eagles”).
T1 is going to be that temperature given that the thermal curve is outside the surface. That is, the maximum temperature is maintained at the surface because the input energy in this case is ensuring it is so.
The thermal gradient is outside the surface.
In the case of a skillet, how much energy is required will depend on the efficiency of the entire system.
What will happen at T2, is the input energy required to maintain 150 bald eagles, at the surface, will be less because we compressed the thermal gradient. We put a sweater on the pan.
At T3, we brought in the reflected IR, and made the system even more efficient. The input energy is now not only being insulated, but “bounced around” and recycled.
At no point though will the surface temperature rise above the input energy.
This of course means that it’s going to be the efficiency of the system which determines the surface temperature.
If it’s really struggling to maintain it’s 150 BE, without a lid or foil, then we may see an increase in T2, and T3 for the same input energy. If we observe an increased surface temperature, it’s because we created a more efficient system. At no point did the surface temperature become more than it’s possible input energy potential.
200 watts 
The input energy will be the same in all 3 scenarios.
So the answer is either it will or it won’t increase? That is not very definitive 
Basically I am asking for your (and mine and everyone’s) predictions up front, before I do the experiment. That way it will actually demonstrate something and we can learn something.
Otherwise we will just rationalize away whatever the result is and make back-explanations to fill it in.
So… what do you think will happen?
EDIT: Just realized from the glass jar link that I should do a “Covered” and “Foiled” baseline too where I leave them covered without the input energy on. To control for any effect not related to the induction heating … I will do it in garage anyway away from sunlight.
At T2 and T3 you will see an increase in surface temperature for the same 200 watts.
That is because the system is not a perfect conversion of energy.
You will not see an increase above the theoretical maximum of the 200 watts.
Honestly, still my hero! but, at the scale you are working with, you will have a really hard time with controlling the experiment.
The logistics of getting accurate measurements is going to do your head in really quickly. I am all for it but I suggest a really good set of welders gloves.
So roughly it will go up a bit but not a ton… wondering how to figure out what the theoretical would be.
I think according to the Quantumville math it should be much more than 200 watt equivalent, like 400 or even more. So maybe I could measure how hot it gets uncovered with higher energy rating and we see if it’s close …
Tricky tho there’s so many variables. Hard to design good experiment
I am not in anyway trying to rain on your parade. I just spent the last week fantasising about an IR detector and a virtual model.
I wonder if there is indeed a Nobel Prize in this somehow?
Experimentally, what we want is to leverage unsuspecting data. Data from sources which are in no way connected with “climate science”.
I am thinking of geology, various data available behind “pay walls”.
My son, being a uni student, can get to all those papers which are otherwise not available on the net (abstracts only stuff).
I spoke with him about formulating a question for the climatology professors. Something innocent.
The basics are pretty simple, there is no such thing as free energy.
The question is whether the starting point is -18c.
That’s the entire issue, right there.
All of the other numbers depend on this being factual. They are either “fudging” all of the data to match this starting point, or are being absolute asshats in not providing the experimental results.
I am loathed to say it, but I am now 95% convinced there are no experimental results.
I wasn’t trying to build a thesis, so I didn’t save any links or references; however, watching a video on a young scientist explain how there is only two validation stations on the entire continent of Africa, and they have otherwise found satellite data to be up to 20c OUT from actual ground measurements…
I just about spontaneously combusted.
Not at all! The reason I made the thread is to find any issues with the experiment. I want it to actually mean something when I do it. If the answer wouldn’t change anything then no reason to do it and I’ll return all the equipment or something
Oh , you already bought it!
Props.
I would say to run the experiment exactly how you envision it.
Then, like a good scientist, see what can be improved.
I think, you will have issues with the scale you are working at.
However, with that equipment, you can devise other experiments.
Either that, or you are going to have some wonderful chicken dinners very soon.