[mad aetherist (OP)]

So how come they kept getting the right answer,

Because it's the right answer. What else would they get?

U said the 4 K reference must vary, thats why they couldnt have gotten the right answer, unless of course, they, they, cheated.

Does your house have thermostats?

My house doesnt have thermostats. It doesnt have any air conditioning or ceiling fans. It doesnt have any electric or gas house heating.  I have a cast iron wood-burning heater in the billiards room & a cast iron wood-burning stove in the kitchen (plus i do have electric cooking & electric hot water).
During 3 hot months cooling is by closing some blinds during the day & opening some windows at night.
During 5 cold months the cast iron wood heater burns in 1st gear during the day & on idle overnite. I might use 2rd or 3rd gear if i have visitors. My wood comes from my property plus from fallen trees on my neighbours property (that i look after when they are away)(which is all the time)(there have been so many fallen trees this year that i might not need any wood from my property).

On Planck the LFI 4 K reference used for calibration etc has no cooling or heating, all it has is i think conduction into the 4 K shield (i think).  Hencely its 4 K must vary, as u quite rightly pointed out.  Hencely the claimed 2.72 K & the claimed 0.0001 K accuracy smells fishy.

[Bored chemist]

cooling is by closing some blinds during the day

OK, there's something (you, as it happens) that take action to maintain the temperature.
So, your assertion

My house doesnt have thermostats.

is a misunderstanding.

the LFI 4 K reference used for calibration etc has no cooling or heating,

Really?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I cant find the posting (i think it is in another thread) but i remember that bored chemist or someone else said that if the ocean was responsible for the CMBR then the CMBR should have a seasonal variation.
My thinking is that it is the Earth's atmosphere (ie the water in the atmosphere) that gives the CMBR signal, & the temperature of the upper atmosphere is i think not very variable.  Anyhow here below is what Robitaille says............

Water, Hydrogen Bonding, and the Microwave Background -- Pierre-Marie Robitaille – 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L2.PDF

In summary, the microwave background can be understood as follows: photons are being produced by the oceans and they are then scattered in the atmosphere such that a completely isotropic signal is observed [15]. The isotropy of the microwave background was first reported by Penzias and Wilson [21]. The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures. This explains why the microwave background is independent of seasonal changes [21]. Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [24, 25]. This hypothesis has not been refuted either by the three year [26] or five year WMAP findings.

I am not sure what this means....
.........the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures........
Praps someone here can explain.
In any case i reckon that the photons heating the water in the atmosphere mainly come from the Sun, not so much the oceans.  And the Sun's radiation has very little seasonal variation. I dont see any need for an explanation involving some kind of saturation of the hydrogen bonding in the ocean or in the atmospheric water.

[Bored chemist]

My thinking is that it is the Earth's atmosphere (ie the water in the atmosphere) that gives the CMBR signal, & the temperature of the upper atmosphere is i think not very variable.

It wasn't me who said it, but never mind.
You are right. The temperature of the upper atmosphere doesn't change very much
According to this
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1950.tb00338.x
the data indicate " indicate a diurnal temperature range of the order of 10 to 15° C."
Now that's a huge range compared to the variation of the CMBR.

But it gets worse.
Here's some data on the actual temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature

And it varies from about 190K to 280K

Yet you seem to be claiming that it's at 2.7K in order to emit the CMBR.

Can you explain why the data is roughly a hundredfold wrong?

I am not sure what this means....
.........the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures........

I can help with that.
It's meaningless.

But you still have to explain why you get exactly the same answer when you measure it in space, miles from Earth- and looking in the wrong direction, and  so this is just insane.

Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [

.

[Bored chemist]

And the Sun's radiation has very little seasonal variation.

Have you really not noticed that it gets cold in Winter and at night?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

My thinking is that it is the Earth's atmosphere (ie the water in the atmosphere) that gives the CMBR signal, & the temperature of the upper atmosphere is i think not very variable.

It wasn't me who said it, but never mind.You are right. The temperature of the upper atmosphere doesn't change very much According to thishttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1950.tb00338.x
the data indicate " indicate a diurnal temperature range of the order of 10 to 15° C."Now that's a huge range compared to the variation of the CMBR. But it gets worse. Here's some data on the actual temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature And it varies from about 190K to 280K Yet you seem to be claiming that it's at 2.7K in order to emit the CMBR. Can you explain why the data is roughly a hundredfold wrong?

I am not sure what this means....
.........the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures........

I can help with that. It's meaningless. But you still have to explain why you get exactly the same answer when you measure it in space, miles from Earth- and looking in the wrong direction, and  so this is just insane.

Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [

.

The critical issue is the temp of the upper layers of EZ water. This will i think be just below the tropopause.  The temps near ground & the temps in the dry air above the tropopause are irrelevant. The rubbish one reads re the large variation of temps very high up is of course coming from the same idiots who think that the Sun's corona is at 1 million deg when it is actually at about 5000 deg.
The same idiots who think that a block of ice is warmer when it is moving faster.

The hundredfold difference is explained by Robitaille. He explains that the hydrogen bonding strength is 80 to 240 times weaker than the hydroxyl bonding.  Thusly EZ water emits at 300 K & 3 K.
I notice that the idiot-mafia still talk of interference from the atmosphere as being due to oxygen, ie no real progress here since Penzias & Wilson.

If the upper layers of EZ water suffer a diurnal true-temperature change of 1 K (eg 300 K drops to 299 K) then the apparent faux-temperature of say 3 K drops by only 1/80 K (ie 0.125 K)(in which case the 3K apparent faux-temperature at midday would drop to 2.875 K at night)(not a big drop), or praps the 3 K drops by as little as 1/240 K (ie 0.0042 K)(in which case the 3K drops to 2.9958 K at night)(a very small drop).
Hencely if the CMBR is due to EZ water in the atmosphere then there would not be a big daily or seasonal change in the apparent faux-temperature of 3 K.

[Bored chemist]

I notice that the idiot-mafia still talk of interference from the atmosphere as being due to oxygen

Where?
Oxygen is a poor absorber in the IR / microwave regions of the em spectrum.

The hundredfold difference is explained by Robitaille. H

No, he doesn't explain it.
He spouts some tecnobabble and you fall for it because you don't know better.

The critical issue is the temp of the upper layers of EZ water. This will i think be just below the tropopause.  T

Fine, but none of those have temperatures that are anywhere near 2.7K
So you are still wrong.

The rubbish one reads re the large variation of temps very high up is of course coming from the same idiots who think that the Sun's corona is at 1 million deg when it is actually at about 5000 deg.

Can you show your evidence and calculations for your 5000K claim?
Or are you posting made up stuff?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Ok further to #82 (Dr Robitaille's explanation) & #85 (my explanation) re the observed (by BICEP & WMAP & COBE & Planck) lack of daily or seasonal changes in the 2.725 K temperature of the CMBR, such changes being (says bored chemist) necessary if the CMBR is indeed merely an Earthly oceanic or atmospheric radiation (ie not cosmic). I reckon that it is atmospheric not oceanic. The small amount of EZ water in the atmosphere is nonetheless very efficient at absorbing & emitting in the infrared & far-infrared & the microwave.

My new explanation is that the EZ water (vapour) in the upper atmosphere reduces during the night (& winter), & the microwave radiation from the (hydrogen bonds in the) EZ water is emitted moreso by the EZ water found at lower altitudes, where the actual nighttime temperature might be the same as the daytime temperature at higher altitude (which is say 280 K). Here i am talking about EZ water below the tropopause (i dont think there is any EZ water above).

The nightly reduction of EZ water is because the thickness of the EZ layer inside water droplets increases when droplets absorb the Sun's infrared radiation (see at 6:10 in the youtube of G Pollack's -- Weather & EZ Water -- link
 shown below).  Absorption is at a max at 270 nanometres (ie in the infrared)(see 15:35 in video).

In addition EZ water at higher altitudes would be "lost" if it changed to ice during the night, ice does not contain EZ water, & ice (& snow) does not have a strong microwave emission.
 
Not forgetting that any change (eg 1 K) in the actual average temperature of the atmospheric EZ water (which is say 280 K) has only a 1/80 K or even 1/240 K effect on the apparent faux-temperature (which is say 2.725 K).
A ratio of 2.8 K / 280 K suggests a 1/100 K/K correspondence.

[Bored chemist]

My new explanation is that the EZ water

No, that won't do.
You have to explain it in terms of real things, not fairy tales that we already proved were nonsense.

Also you keep saying stuff like "

any change (eg 1 K) in the actual average temperature of the atmospheric EZ water (which is say 280 K) has only a 1/80 K or even 1/240 K effect on the apparent faux-temperature (which is say 2.725 K).

You don't seem to understand that this "divide by 100 to get the right answer" is "faux".
Can you show us how you think temperatures are measured from microwave spectra?

[Stephen123]

I installed an <<brand removed>> a few years and no one problem to date. This was simple because my electrician was able to re-purpose the existing 240v circuit for my older electric water heater.  This heater also needs a good ground to work properly as stated in the installation manual. From a supply perspective, I took special care to insure that our gas line was sufficient to handle a 100,000 BTU demand even when other appliances were running.

[Kryptid]

I installed an <<brand removed>> a few years and no one problem to date. This was simple because my electrician was able to re-purpose the existing 240v circuit for my older electric water heater.  This heater also needs a good ground to work properly as stated in the installation manual. From a supply perspective, I took special care to insure that our gas line was sufficient to handle a 100,000 BTU demand even when other appliances were running.

Looking over your past posts, you are clearly only here to advertise. This thread isn't even about water heaters.

[puppypower]

Our universe is mostly composed of hydrogen, which has a boiling point of around 10K. If most of the hydrogen of the universe was solid hydrogen ice crystals, cooled to 2.7K, we would get universal black body radiation, that looks like the cosmic background radiation. The 10K is based on standard earth surface conditions A vacuum will lower the measured boiling point of hydrogen.

The hydrogen will be everywhere due to the hydrogen abundance and the abundance of open space. One could also take into account the universal redshift of solid hydrogen black box radiation at any starting temperature.

First generation stars formed from hydrogen and helium, while second generation stars form from water. Once the star is ignited, heat and pressure will force hot hydrogen back into cold space. The hot hydrogen will go through the usual phase changes, with the liquid to solid hydrogen transition, also able to sub-cool below it's boiling point. Sub cooing is common to materials. The question becomes is there a semi-stable sub cooled solid hydrogen phase at 2.7K. If so it would also be a candidate for superconductivity which may helped the affect we see.

We also know that water is the most common molecule in the universe, due to hydrogen and oxygen being two of the top three atoms in the universe; plus helium. Previous discussions, early in this topic, mentioned hydrogen bonding in the earth's oceans and atmosphere adding note that can be mistaken for the CMBR. The universe also has hydrogen bonding anywhere there are/were stars that made water. If this water also makes noise it can also appears like the CMBR.

[Bored chemist]

Our universe is mostly composed of hydrogen, which has a boiling point of around 10K.

At about 10^Pa pressure.
Actually, it varies with pressure over a range from about 13 to about 33 K.

If most of the hydrogen of the universe was solid hydrogen ice crystals, cooled to 2.7K, we would get universal black body radiation, that looks like the cosmic background radiation

No, it wouldn't.
Because of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reststrahlen_effect

Though that's not the only problem Simplistically, there is a reason why they call it "black body" radiation and frozen hydrogen is by any sensible definition, white.

The other problem is that solid hydrogen, at 2.7K would evaporate in the vacuum of space.
You can have a look at this
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7110677
it will tell you how to calculate the variation of vapour pressure with temperature.

We also know that water is the most common molecule in the universe,

No, it's not.
H2 is much more common than H2O

Previous discussions, early in this topic, mentioned hydrogen bonding in the earth's oceans and atmosphere adding note that can be mistaken for the CMBR.

But those discussions were wrong.
They still are.

The question becomes is there a semi-stable sub cooled solid hydrogen phase at 2.7K.

No.
If anything, solid H2 at 2.7K in space would be superheated.
And it's an exceptionally good electrical insulator so this is tosh.

it would also be a candidate for superconductivity

which may helped the affect we see.

What effect do you mean?