# Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency



## ScienceRocks (Apr 14, 2015)

Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

http://ds.data.jma.g...mp/mar_wld.html




> The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in March 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.31°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.76°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.83°C per century.



Japan would be more truthful? With all that honor and killing themselves over dishonor. Right???


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 14, 2015)

March GISS temp is out.  The anomaly was .84C above the 1951-1980 baseline.  This is good for the 3rd warmest March.  It's also the warmest month since the moderate El Nino in 2010.



So far 2015 is averaging a .79 anomaly.  Effectively blowing every other "developing nino" year out of the water.



Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 41 46 57 51 56 53 59 48 52 47 67 52 52 50 38 55 53 55 2001
2002 71 73 88 56 62 54 58 52 62 54 58 42 61 62 66 69 55 58 2002
2003 71 54 55 52 60 46 53 65 62 72 52 72 60 57 56 56 55 62 2003
2004 55 66 62 58 40 40 22 41 50 62 69 48 51 53 64 53 34 60 2004
2005 68 55 66 66 61 64 62 59 73 76 71 64 65 64 57 64 62 73 2005
2006 52 65 59 45 43 60 50 66 59 66 69 74 59 58 61 49 59 65 2006
2007 93 65 67 71 64 56 58 57 61 56 54 46 62 65 77 68 57 57 2007
2008 22 31 69 48 46 43 54 39 59 61 62 51 49 48 33 54 45 61 2008
2009 56 49 49 57 59 62 66 61 64 58 71 58 59 58 52 55 63 64 2009
2010 65 74 87 82 70 59 57 59 55 65 75 45 66 67 66 80 58 65 2010
2011 45 44 57 60 48 54 70 69 52 60 50 48 55 55 45 55 64 54 2011
2012 38 43 52 62 71 58 50 56 68 72 69 46 57 57 43 62 55 69 2012
2013 61 51 59 48 56 60 53 61 72 60 75 60 60 58 53 54 58 69 2013
2014 68 43 70 72 78 61 50 73 81 77 63 73 67 66 57 73 61 73 2014
2015 75 78 84 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 75 **** **** **** 2015


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 14, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency
> 
> http://ds.data.jma.g...mp/mar_wld.html
> 
> ...


 
I'm convinced, we need to spend trillions on unreliable "green" energy! Quick!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2015)

Given fossil fuels run out, of course we need to spend money on green energy. You'd have to be 'effin stupid to think otherwise.

That GISS chart might need to expand to 3 digits soon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Given fossil fuels run out, of course we need to spend money on green energy. You'd have to be 'effin stupid to think otherwise.
> 
> That GISS chart might need to expand to 3 digits soon.


 
Of course. The Japanese agree.

Japan Defies Obama -- Plans On Building 43 Coal Plants The Daily Caller

LOL!


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

Where did that Pulitzer winner, the Daily Caller, get the idea that the Japanese building coal plants were defying Obama?  Did you think they knew the Fukushima disaster was going to take place?  Do you think the Japanese government should let millions sit in the dark cooking their meals over fires because they pledged to cut carbon emissions dramatically?

BTW, Hey Todd.  Long time no see.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2015)

Forecast from the North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME) for sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region. NOAA Climate.gov figure by Fiona Martin, from CPC data. (*Updated @ 2:30 Eastern time. *The minus sign for -0.5°C was shifted up to the positive 0.5 value on the first version of this graph. It has been corrected.)

*Looks like 2015 is going to be a very warm year. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Where did that Pulitzer winner, the Daily Caller, get the idea that the Japanese building coal plants were defying Obama?  Did you think they knew the Fukushima disaster was going to take place?  Do you think the Japanese government should let millions sit in the dark cooking their meals over fires because they pledged to cut carbon emissions dramatically?
> 
> BTW, Hey Todd.  Long time no see.


 
*  Do you think the Japanese government should let millions sit in the dark cooking their meals over fires because they pledged to cut carbon emissions dramatically?*

Of course not. 
Adding "green" energy would be more expensive and they'd still be sitting in the dark.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2015)

FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! ALL THE DATA IS FAKE!

There. Now certain people don't have to post.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 14, 2015)

The alarmists are digging a huge hole and they are about to get buried in it..


Wolf, Wolf, wolf, wolf, wolf,wolf,wolf, wolf,wolf,wolf,wolf,wolf................ 


All of the adjusted data is about to fall in on their heads..


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

Do let us know when that actually happens.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 15, 2015)

All data sets support the warming since the 1970's. That is a fact...Learn to accept it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2015)

Well, ol' Billy Boob, you have been saying that we are going to see a cooling. 2014 warmest year on
record, and 2015 already looking to beat that. Coming months we will see whose head things fall on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 15, 2015)

Matthew said:


> All data sets support the warming since the 1970's. That is a fact...Learn to accept it.


 
Gosh, warming is scary. How many trillions do we need to spend, to make it stop?
How will we know when we've wasted...err...invested enough?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Cliamte science has become an absolute fraud...

They cook the books and claim that this or that is the warmest ever.







They then completely ignore the more accurate satellite data which says that they are lying.






And then announce that the satellite data which contradict the surface data confirm the surface data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 15, 2015)

Oh shit, magic photon guy is back.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Oh shit, magic photon guy is back.




Thought I explained my position to you....sorry you didn't grasp it.  Should I explain again?

I am guessing that you believe in photons?  If you do, then you must believe that they exist as science says they exist?  Correct?

Apply the Lorentz relativity equations to photons moving at the speed of light (c).  The equations will tell you that neither time, nor space is experienced by a photon from its point of view.  That means that from its point of view, it has no distance to go because all spatial length has been infinitely compressed, and time doesn't exist for it because time has come to a standstill due to infinite time dilation.

This means that a photon has no distance to travel in no time....and you must acknowledge its perspective because of the theory of relativity.    This being true (if photons actually exist) then photons actually "know " (you know what quotation marks mean around when used around a word like that?) what its destination is like and therefore doesn't move from cool to warm.  That being the case, you can limit radiative energy transfer to the same rules as physical contact energy transfer.

Now the question is, do you also believe in back conduction?

You either can wrap your mind around the fact that your view of what photons do has nothing to do with how photons experience time and space or you can't.  If you can't, so much the sadder for you.  It is no skin off my nose.

Do feel free to prove me wrong.  Your explanation should be f'ing interesting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh shit, magic photon guy is back.
> ...


* 
That means that from its point of view, it has no distance to go because all spatial length has been infinitely compressed, and time doesn't exist for it because time has come to a standstill due to infinite time dilation.*
So, because photons don't "experience time" that means that time does not exist.
So that means photons can predict the future.
So they aren't smart, they're psychic. Cute.

*then photons actually "know " (you know what quotation marks mean around when used around a word like that?) what its destination is like*

What it's like now? Violating all sorts of laws of physics?
Or what it will be, millions (billions even) of years in the future?
You're always good for a laugh.

*Now the question is, do you also believe in back conduction?*

Why don't you explain what you feel "back conduction" means?
I'll let you know if I do.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So, because photons don't "experience time" that means that time does not exist.



Depends entirely on your point of view....for you time exists...for photons, it doesn't.  Relativity.  You have heard of it....right?  Have any idea what it means?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So that means photons can predict the future.



Future is a meaningless term to an entity that doesn't experience time.  Relativity.   Heard of it?....any idea what it means.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So they aren't smart, they're psychic. Cute.



I had no expectation that you could wrap your mind around this so don't worry about disappointing me. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What it's like now? Violating all sorts of laws of physics?
> Or what it will be, millions (billions even) of years in the future?
> You're always good for a laugh.



Again, future is a meaningless term if you are traveling at the speed of light.   Relativity....heard of it?....any idea what it means?

  Personally, I don't believe photons exist, but if you are going to believe in them, then you must believe in them as science describes them and as science describes them, they do not experience either time or space.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why don't you explain what you feel "back conduction" means?



It is a straight forward term....surely you can grasp it.  If you can't you have my deepest sympathies.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'll let you know if I do.



You do that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 15, 2015)

*It is a straight forward term....surely you can grasp it.*

Excellent! Then you can easily explain what you feel it is.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It is a straight forward term....surely you can grasp it.*
> 
> Excellent! Then you can easily explain what you feel it is.



Strange,  you seem to know what back radiation is and believe in it wholeheartedly....do you believe that energy moves from cool to warm if the two bodies are in physical contact?  Are you really unable to grasp what might be meant by back conduction as it relates to a conversation about back radiation?  Geez guy...are you that timid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It is a straight forward term....surely you can grasp it.*
> ...


 
*Strange, you seem to know what back radiation is and believe in it wholeheartedly*

I believe in radiation. Front...back...whatever.
Why don't you believe in back radiation?

*Are you really unable to grasp what might be meant by back conduction*

I've never heard of it. Sounds like something a moron invented.
Was it you?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I believe in radiation. Front...back...whatever.
> Why don't you believe in back radiation?



You are becoming very tiring and tedious.  My position is well known and I have stated it to you numerous times.  No memory for detail?  Neither heat nor energy will move from cool to warm without some work having been done to accomplish the movement.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I've never heard of it. Sounds like something a moron invented.



Sounds like a failure on your part.....seems that you know you have been wrong and just don't want to admit it.  If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm, it seems that you must also believe that energy can move from a cool body to a warm body if they are in physical contact...conduction, not radiation.  Do you believe that energy can be conducted from a cool body to a warm body.  Are you afraid to answer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I believe in radiation. Front...back...whatever.
> ...


 
*My position is well known *

And I laugh everytime I think about it.

*Sounds like a failure on your part.....*

Failure to hear about this particular bit of your silliness was no great loss.

* If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm*

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

*Do you believe that energy can be conducted from a cool body to a warm body.*

Will the molecular vibrations of a cooler body cause a warmer body to increase its temperature? Of course not.
Do you feel that means the molecules of the cooler body cease vibrating when they touch that warmer body? Because that seems to be what you feel happens to bodies that radiate.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And I laugh everytime I think about it.




Laughing is all you can do.  You certainly haven't been able to put up any rational argument against it.  Laughter and sarcasm are defense measures in a debate...you do them when you have no actual rebuttal.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Failure to hear about this particular bit of your silliness was no great loss.



Again with the defense mechanism...no actual argument.  Are you going to deny the Lorentz equations apply to photons or are you going to deny relativity?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?



Clearly we are over your head here...SB applies to radiation...we are talking about conduction here.  Do you believe that energy can conduct from cool to warm in the same way you believe energy can radiate from cool to warm?  Why are you afraid to answer Toddster?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Will the molecular vibrations of a cooler body cause a warmer body to increase its temperature? Of course not.



At this point, I can only guess that you don't know what conduction is.  We are talking about energy transfer here.  Do you believe that energy can transfer from cool to warm via conduction?  Simple question to answer, why are you having such a hard time?  Why all the tiptoeing around the actual question?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you feel that means the molecules of the cooler body cease vibrating when they touch that warmer body? Because that seems to be what you feel happens to bodies that radiate.


[/quote]

Still dancing.  Conduction is a means of energy transfer between bodies that are in direct contact....energy transfer from molecule to molecule by direct contact.  Do you believe that energy can transfer from a cool object to a warm object via conduction?  You are embarrassing yourself here Toddster.  It is a simple yes / no question....what's the problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And I laugh everytime I think about it.
> ...


 
Still dancing.  Conduction is a means of energy transfer between bodies that are in direct contact....energy transfer from molecule to molecule by direct contact.  Do you believe that energy can transfer from a cool object to a warm object via conduction?  You are embarrassing yourself here Toddster.  It is a simple yes / no question....what's the problem.[/QUOTE]


*If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm*

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

*Clearly we are over your head here...SB applies to radiation...we are talking about conduction here.*

Is that why you said radiate and I responded to radiate? Idiot.

* Simple question to answer, why are you having such a hard time?*

I gave a simple answer. English must not be your first language. 

*Laughter and sarcasm are defense measures in a debate*

They are also the best response to your idiocy.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 16, 2015)

We just had record cold all winter long.    Let's pick out one month, isolate it from the rest of the data, and proclaim the sky is falling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency
> 
> http://ds.data.jma.g...mp/mar_wld.html
> 
> ...



....and your "theory" states that the 2PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere is responsible, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency
> ...


 
His theory states that CO2 will kill us all, but greens still won't support nuclear power.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

OK. Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance. Same for building them. In the mean time, the people building the wind and PV sites do just that. Coal is losing out to natural gas, wind, and solar. Soon, natural gas will be losing out to wind, solar, and geothermal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> We just had record cold all winter long.    Let's pick out one month, isolate it from the rest of the data, and proclaim the sky is falling.


Really? We just had a record warm winter, so the whole world must have also.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> OK. Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance. Same for building them. In the mean time, the people building the wind and PV sites do just that. Coal is losing out to natural gas, wind, and solar. Soon, natural gas will be losing out to wind, solar, and geothermal.


 
* Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance.*

You don't want to spend government money on the only reliable CO2-free energy source we can add in huge amounts now? I guess you're not so scared of global warming....err...climate change.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?



The SB law describes a one way energy movement from a black body radiating into a vacuum...a colder vacuum.  But that isn't really what we are talking about here.  You seem scared to bring yourself to say what you think here.  What's the matter, can't find anyone to tell you what to believe?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that why you said radiate and I responded to radiate? Idiot.


Read again...clearly you are not reading for comprehension...or you just can't read.  I said:

" it seems that you must also believe that energy can move from a cool body to a warm body if they are in physical contact...conduction, not radiation."

Idiot.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I gave a simple answer. English must not be your first language.



You gave no answer to my question...you clumsily danced around the question.  Again, what's the problem.  No one told you what to believe yet?  

Do you think energy can conduct from a cold object to a warm object if they are in physical contact.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They are also the best response to your idiocy.



Again with the defense mechanism...clearly you are afraid of the subject matter and have nothing but sarcasm and name calling at this point.  You can't even say whether you believe back conduction happens.  The needle on the respect-o-meter is falling rapidly.  Feeling fragile Toddster?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

We cannot build nukes anywhere as nearly as quickly as we can build wind and solar. Not only that, but with the grid scale batteries, both are 24/7. Nukes are a loser because of the cost and the waste.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

SSDD, go peddle your insanity somewhere there are totally ignorant people. Not even the deniers here buy your nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> OK. Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance. Same for building them. In the mean time, the people building the wind and PV sites do just that. Coal is losing out to natural gas, wind, and solar. Soon, natural gas will be losing out to wind, solar, and geothermal.



Talk to germany about the viability of renewables.  Their energy bills are double what ours are and damned near a million poor people had their power cut off last winter because they could't afford it.  Why do you greens hate poor people so much....every damned plan you come up with invariably hurts the people who can least afford it most.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD, go peddle your insanity somewhere there are totally ignorant people. Not even the deniers here buy your nonsense.



No actual rebuttal....not to worry....you are the last person I would expect to provide one.  Carry on with your cultish lies, fabrications, and cherry picking.....and losing.


----------



## westwall (Apr 16, 2015)

Matthew said:


> All data sets support the warming since the 1970's. That is a fact...Learn to accept it.









You need to go back to 1850 Matthew.  And, most of the warming occurred over 50 years ago.  No matter what the data manipulators claim the 1930's were far warmer than the present day with far more days over the 100 degree mark than any decade since.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

All the physicists in the world have already rebutted your nonsense, I don't need to even try.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > All data sets support the warming since the 1970's. That is a fact...Learn to accept it.
> ...


Like hell. Only in the US was the '30's that warm. You continue to by a lying fuck. By your thinking, January and February were record cold months worldwide because the Eastern US was cold. 

*1934 is the hottest year on record*

*Climate Myth...*
1934 - hottest year on record
Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McIntyre notified NASA which acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh.  As a result, "The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech).



The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th).

Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in _global_ surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?
> ...


* 
The SB law describes a one way energy movement*

Where?

*Read again...clearly you are not reading for comprehension...or you just can't read.*

You said radiation, I said SB. Did you actually lose IQ points during your absence?

*But that isn't really what we are talking about here. You seem scared to bring yourself to say what you think here.*

I am not scared to point out your idiocy.

*You gave no answer to my question...*

Try reading for comprehension.

*clearly you are afraid of the subject matter*

Your confusion about photons, waves, the SB Law and back radiation do not made me afraid at all. And as I said, it makes me laugh.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> All the physicists in the world have already rebutted your nonsense, I don't need to even try.




Really?...  Then you should have no problem at all providing an observed, measured example of energy moving from cool to warm at ambient temperature with no work having been done to facilitate the movement.  Lets see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> We cannot build nukes anywhere as nearly as quickly as we can build wind and solar. Not only that, but with the grid scale batteries, both are 24/7. Nukes are a loser because of the cost and the waste.


 
*We cannot build nukes anywhere as nearly as quickly as we can build wind and solar.*

I was talking about reliable, large scale power. Not expensive, unreliable wind and solar.

*Nukes are a loser because of the cost and the waste.*

Why do they cost so much and why do you feel waste is an issue?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > All the physicists in the world have already rebutted your nonsense, I don't need to even try.
> ...


 
Or you could show where the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says anything about direction.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where?



Been through that already...sorry you still can't differentiate between a 1 way and a 2 way equation.  Not the topic though...You are dodging.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said radiation, I said SB. Did you actually lose IQ points during your absence?



Still dodging...why is that?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I am not scared to point out your idiocy.



Still dodging...and still with the defense mechanism.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Try reading for comprehension.



Still dodging...and sarcasm is really not an adequate defense.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your confusion about photons, waves, the SB Law and back radiation do not made me afraid at all. And as I said, it makes me laugh.



Still dodging...new behavior for you.  What's the problem.  Do you or don't you think that energy can move from a cool object to a warm object via conduction?  Easy question...why so hesitant.  And to resort to lying that you have answered when all one need do is review your posts to see that you haven't really highlights your trepidation here.

Can't manage a yes or no answer to a yes or no question?  Cleary you aren't very sure of yourself here.  Why?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Already have..but will gladly provide it again after you answer my question with a simple yes or no answer.


----------



## westwall (Apr 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...







Sure thing olfraud.  The US had the most extensive weather station network compared to the rest of the world.  But, interestingly enough...where they DID keep records the story is the same.  The 1930's were warm.

So, just like you all lie and claim that the MWP was European only (while never being able to come up with a explanation how the physics of that would work) but when it is looked for it is found at any location on the planet....when you look at the local records they too show that the 1930's were warmer than the 2000's.

"Notably WARM summer: fifth warmest of the century & ranking (as of 2013) ninth in the entire series. Regarded as extending from Jun through to September: The CET values for each month, with anomalies (rel. to 1961-90 averages) were: Jun:15.6(+1.4), Jul:17.8(+1.7), Aug:17.6(+1.8), Sep:14.9(+1.3)."

One of the WARMEST winters (by CET) in the series which began in 1659. Up to 2013/14, rank=9 Value=6.13; Dec=8.1, Jan=4.5, Feb=5.8 (Others: 1686, 1796, 1834, 1869, 1975, 1989, 1990 and 2007.)

An exceptionally DRY spell over England & Wales, with an anomaly of roughly 30% across the three months. April, with a total of just 7 mm, was the DRIEST such-named month in that series, and the fifth-DRIEST _any-named_ month (last updated 2013). It was even drier along parts of the English south coast; for example, at Poole (Dorset), no rain was recorded at all in April, and at Mayflower Park, Southampton, just 0.8 mm of RAIN was logged this month. (EWP, DWxB). In Scotland, not so dry, with anomalies around 70%.
Dry springs can be notably chilly, but this spring included the second-WARMEST March in the CET record [as of 2014]. With a value of 9.1degC, this represented an anomaly of around +4C on the long-term average, and was only just pipped to 'top spot' by 1957, with a value of 9.2degC. Despite the undoubted warming of the lower troposphere in recent years, no March since this latter date has come close to equalling or exceeding those values. (CET)

1900 to 1949 events.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

westwall said:


> Sure thing olfraud.  The US had the most extensive weather station network compared to the rest of the world.  But, interestingly enough...where they DID keep records the story is the same.  The 1930's were warm.
> 
> So, just like you all lie and claim that the MWP was European only (while never being able to come up with a explanation how the physics of that would work) but when it is looked for it is found at any location on the planet....when you look at the local records they too show that the 1930's were warmer than the 2000's.




Interesting how that local european MWP seems to show up all over the world and is strongly evidenced in the Vostok Ice cores.  How much further from europe can you get than antarctica?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Where?
> ...


 
*Do you or don't you think that energy can move from a cool object to a warm object via conduction?*

I answered up thread.

So no luck finding a direction in SB? 

The *Stefan–Boltzmann law*, also known as *Stefan's law*, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body _radiant exitance_ or _emissive power_), 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature _T_:




Can you point out where direction is in that definition?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2015)

*1934 is the hottest year on record

Response:* The point of the graph is to show the miniscule difference before and after the "Y2K correction". The reason it only showed the last 30 years was because if you display an even longer period, the difference is even harder to detect. Here is the same data going back to 1880 (again courtesy of Tamino):





The difference between the temperature record before the Y2K correction (red dots) and after the correction (black diamonds) is insignificant anytime before 2000 and still barely noticeable after 2000. The change has had practically no detectable impact on the global warming trend over the past 30 years. As for the zero point, temperature anomaly graphs take an average over a specified period (eg - 1960 to 1990) - the temperature anomaly is the difference from this average. The period selected is arbitrary (GISS and CRU use different time periods) as the trend will be the same regardless.

*1934 does not look that impressive on a global scale. Certainly not anywhere near the present temperatures.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 17, 2015)

Look at this nino breaking out!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I answered up thread.



Actually, you didn't...you danced around the question and gave a weasel answer..another defense mechanism...  So I am guessing that you don't think back conduction can happen but just can't bring yourself to actually say it....another defense mechanism.  So I will continue on the guess than you don't think back conduction can happen but are just to timid to say it.  

That being said, if a photon traveling at the speed of light has no distance to travel because of spatial length being infinitely contracted (relativity) and gets there in no time because infinite time dilation, how is energy transfer via radiation any different from energy transfer via conduction.  A photon, according to science comes into existence traveling at the speed of light and therefore is already in contact with its destination.  Energy won't conduct from cool to warm if the bodies are in physical contact and according to science, photons are already in contact with their destination when they come into existence.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to wrap your mind around this but if you are going to believe in photons, then you must try and let them exist in their own reference frame and stop trying to force them into yours.  You envision photons as tiny little things zooming along very fast but traveling some distance and taking some time to get there....thinking of them in those terms is a failure on your part.  From the photon's point of view, it is traveling no distance and taking no time to get there...it is essentially in physical contact with its destination from the time it comes into existence.  No back conduction....no back radiation because they are essentially the same thing.

So now, are you going to deny relativity in order to make the idiotic claim that a photon must somehow know what it is like where it is going rather than accept relativity and admit that a photon knows what its destination is like because it is already there?

I also can't help but notice that Ian hasn't jumped in here to help you out.  He typically can't resist these discussions.  Could it be that he is actually thinking rather than just believing as you are doing?  Could it be that he is trying to allow a photon its own perspective rather than trying to make it conform to his?  What are the ramifications to energy transfer if you allow a photon its on perspective rather than trying to jam it into your own?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So no luck finding a direction in SB?


.

No luck necessary.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The *Stefan–Boltzmann law*, also known as *Stefan's law*, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body _radiant exitance_ or _emissive power_),
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As usual, you hide your lie behind a bit of truth.  You do show the law written in the form for thermal energy being radiated by an actual black body...but as you know, or perhaps you don't...the law is written in different forms for different situations.  We are talking about a radiator that is not a black body and the radiator is radiating into its cooler surroundings.  In that situation (otherwise known as the real world) the equation takes the form of:






   which just happens to be the form used in physics for the hard sciences texts.

That equation describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings.  If the equation were describing a two way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings and then back to the radiator, the equation would take the form of:






So let the denying begin....first deny relativity and claim that a photon must spend some time traveling a distance to its destination and then deny that equations in physics describe things that are happening in the physical world and in order to describe different things, the equation must be altered to make the description accurate.  Deny it all toddster...that's what believers do when their beliefs are challenged.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

What a fucking idiot


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> They then completely ignore the more accurate satellite data which says that they are lying.


The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.

I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I answered up thread.
> ...


 
*Energy won't conduct from cool to warm if the bodies are in physical contact*

Explain how energy is conducted from hot to cold. And then why it won't conduct from cold to hot. Explain in your own words. Then I'll point out your confusion.

*and gets there in no time because infinite time dilation,*

Just because the photon doesn't "age", doesn't mean it can predict the future.

*You envision photons as tiny little things zooming along very fast but traveling some distance and taking some time to get there*

It is true that photons leaving the surface of the sun take over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. I'd call that some time.

*You do show the law written in the form for thermal energy being radiated by an actual black body*

And isn't it interesting that the law shows they radiate, with no reference to direction.

*the law is written in different forms for different situations.*

When you find one that mentions direction, be sure to let me know.

*That equation describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings.*

Then why doesn't the equation I posted come with a caveat, "Unless a warmer object is nearby (nearby being up to billions of light years away, because photons don't experience time. LOL!)"

*So let the denying begin....*

I deny your confused ramblings are the real explanation.

*first deny relativity*

Why would I do that?

*and claim that a photon must spend some time traveling a distance to its destination*

I'd say that's a more accurate description than saying it takes no time for them to travel to their destination.

We could talk about waves, instead of photons.
Maybe you could explain how the magic waves take the temperature of their destination, before they decide if they will propagate in that direction?
Should be good for another laugh.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.
> 
> I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence.



OCO-2 crashed? GCOM-W1 crashed? Who knew?

It's not a coincidence that you tried to peddle such a crazy conspiracy theory. After all, if someone fact-checks, it's impossible for them to get sucked into the denier cult. Your cult masters fed you a fable, and instead of fact-checking, you simply chose to believe it with all your heart.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.
> ...


Whatever, so which ones crashed? Was it the ones that were supoosed to terrify the populce? The sky is falling global warming idiotic bullshit?

And what difference does it make?

Every adequately informed person already knows the Global Warrming bullshit was debunked long ago.

Google "wikilinks, climategate". Educate yourself or remain ignorant. It's your choice. I've always chose enlightenment over ignorance. I advise the rest of you to do the same.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2015)

So satellites were supposed to terrify the populace?

You're a cult fruit loop. You may not understand that, but rest assured that everyone else does.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


here's a link to read up on the satellites that crashed.  They were old ones.  However, their debris is headed toward those climate satellites. Link: Two Satellites crash in space the A-Train. Poll Results.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2015)

nobody is caring about an average of 1/2 a degree. And in the last 18 years, the trend is cooler anyway........no getting around it.

Only the alarmist k00ks think this is news.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

jc456 

You are lying.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So satellites were supposed to terrify the populace?
> 
> You're a cult fruit loop. You may not understand that, but rest assured that everyone else does.


 


Actually sweetie,........in 2015, the alarmists have the "cult" moniker all to themselves. Every single solitary poll shows it!!!

Which one you want me to post up? Pew? Gallup? Rasmussen?

Your pick honey..........either way, you're gonna look pretty fucking stoopid!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2015)

*wHo's nOt wInNiNg??*


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So satellites were supposed to terrify the populace?
> 
> You're a cult fruit loop. You may not understand that, but rest assured that everyone else does.


I happen to be an expert on the subject.

Got any proof that man-made global warming is a threat?"


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

[VIDEO]
Old?

How old,  Mr.global warming?


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...






Lesson; Don't smoke dope and fantasize about man-made global warming and play with rockets at the same time.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So satellites were supposed to terrify the populace?
> ...


I know he/she doesn't.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Look at this nino breaking out!







Would be nice if it did.  We can use the moisture.

These people are enjoying a healthy dose of global warming right now!  10 inches of snow!  Man I wish that had dropped here!



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Actually it's probably one of the fraudsters. He needs to be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Maximum penalty, no less.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

On what subject are you an expert and for what violation would anyone be arrested and prosecuted?


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> On what subject are you an expert and for what violation would anyone be arrested and prosecuted?






Defrauding the taxpayers out of their hard earned money!


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear.  That question was directed at Muhammed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 17, 2015)

I see the global warming nutters are out in force pushing their mantra despite the cooling trend...  They are all gonna be soooo disapointed as the Ocean is now rapidly cooling and there is nothing to moderate the cooling.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

Data please.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)




----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

Yes, data, please.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> What a fucking idiot



Why yes you are...any other brilliant comments?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2015)

LOL. So says our purveyor of intelligent photons. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > On what subject are you an expert and for what violation would anyone be arrested and prosecuted?
> ...


Well yes, corksmokers like Inhofe should get about 20 years in Leavenworth.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Explain how energy is conducted from hot to cold. And then why it won't conduct from cold to hot. Explain in your own words. Then I'll point out your confusion.



So now you do believe that energy will conduct from cold to warm....ie back conduction.  I am afraid that it is you who is confused toddster.  No more explanation is needed as to why than the second law...neither heat nor energy will move from cold to warm without some work being done to accomplish the movement.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just because the photon doesn't "age", doesn't mean it can predict the future.



Again, trying to force a photon into your frame of reference is pointless.  From a photon's point of view there is no future...time is at a standstill.  Sorry you can't wrap your mind around this.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> It is true that photons leaving the surface of the sun take over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. I'd call that some time.



It is true from your point of view...it is not true from a photon's point of view.  Again, it is clear that you are having real trouble getting your mind around this.  From the photon's point of view the body it originates from is in contact with its destination...zero distance to travel...zero time to get there.  The photon exists at every point between the point of its origin and the point of its destination just as you exist at every point between the rock and the hard place you are squeezed between.  

Describe, if you can, the difference between zero time and zero distance between objects and physical contact.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And isn't it interesting that the law shows they radiate, with no reference to direction.



Actually, it shows nothing  because it describes a condition that does not exist in reality.  It shows a non reality starting point and then continues on to describe reality.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> When you find one that mentions direction, be sure to let me know.



Already did....sorry you don't understand.  As predicted, you are now denying that the equations describing physical laws actually describe events that are happening in the real world and alterations to the equation also alter the description of the events.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Then why doesn't the equation I posted come with a caveat, "Unless a warmer object is nearby (nearby being up to billions of light years away, because photons don't experience time. LOL!)"



Why don't the Lorentz equations come with a caveat that describe what is happening in terms even a cretin could understand?  Answer, because it is assumed that if you are going to bother to look at it at all, you will at least grasp the meaning of the equation.  

And again, you fail to wrap your mind around relativity.  You don't seem to be able to get your mind around existence from a photon's reference point.    And now we have another denial...have you proven the Lorentz relativity equations wrong?  Lets see your proof.  If you haven't, then the time (from the photon's reference point) between the photon's point of origin and that point that you call billions of light years away is zero...and the distance (from the photon's reference point) between the photon's point of origin and that point you call billions of light years away is also zero.

So again, describe the difference between zero time and zero distance between objects and physical contact.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I deny your confused ramblings are the real explanation.



You deny relativity?  You deny that the Lorentz relativity equations are true?  You deny that a photon is moving at the speed of light and therefore must be granted the point of view of an entity moving at the speed of light?  Interesting.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would I do that?



You already have by trying to impose concepts like time and future and age on an entity that does not experience time...and by trying to impose distance on an entity that does not experience space.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd say that's a more accurate description than saying it takes no time for them to travel to their destination.



The Lorentz relativity equations say that an entity travelling at the speed of light in fact has no time and no distance to travel as a result of infinite time dilation and no distance to travel because all spatial length is infinitely contracted.  So, again, have you disproved either the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity itself?  Lets see the proof.  If you haven't then I am afraid you are just going to have to try to wrap your mind around what reality is like for a photon...or simply accept the fact that you are denying relativity. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe you could explain how the magic waves take the temperature of their destination, before they decide if they will propagate in that direction?



The waves in question also travel at the speed of light and as such also have no distance to travel in no time and therefore are also, according to the Lorentz equations already at their destination when they come into existence.  

Now, you have a warm object that is radiating energy, and you place it in physical contact with a cool object that is radiating energy.  How does the energy in the cool object know not to try and conduct to the warmer object?  Where does it go?  Suppose you completely enclose the cooler object with a warmer object that is in physical contact all the way around the cooler object?  Where does the energy from the cooler object go if it can't conduct to a warmer object that is in physical contact with it?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Should be good for another laugh.



I am laughing at you...that's for sure...although I do feel a bit bad about laughing...It is a bit sad to see someone who sees himself as smart trying to impose concepts like time, age, future, and distance on an entity that experiences nether time nor distance
and not grasping how ridiculous and pointless the effort is.  I predicted that you would deny both relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations and you did.  Of course you can provide no proof that either is incorrect, you just can't get your mind around them.  For all your pretense of being one of the smartest guys in the room, you can't accept zero time and zero distance between points that you perceive as very far apart.

Tell me toddster, if it were possible for you to see a photon from its point of origin from point A  going to point B which were ...say one light year apart, what do you think it would look like? 

And one more time, how is zero distance and zero time between two bodies different from physical contact?  In your own words.[/quote]


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


>




.2 degrees!!!! Pardon me while I try not to choke on my just sipped coffee!!


And some wonder why nobody cares about global warming!!!


Only the hyper-hysterical among us get freaked out by .2 degree's over 18 years!!!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear.  That question was directed at Muhammed.




Open forum...if you don't want answers from anyone else, send him an IM...and how often do you jump in on conversations to which you were not originally a part?.....tell us mr hypocrisy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. So says our purveyor of intelligent photons. LOL



Tell me rocks, do you believe in back conduction?...that is energy transfer from a cool object to a warm object when the two are in physical contact?  If you do, can you give us an observed measured example?  If you don't can you perhaps describe the difference between zero time and zero distance between objects and physical contact.

Perhaps you also care to deny relativity and or the Lorentz relativity equations like toddster.

This should be interesting.  I await with baited breath...but fully expect no actual response so don't worry about disappointing me.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> .2 degrees!!!! Pardon me while I try not to choke on my just sipped coffee!!



Wonder how many orders of magnitude the margin of error is than the claimed warming?  They never seem to want to include the error bars.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

http:// 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	














SSDD is a troll


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> http://
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So you proved my point...the error bars are much larger than the claimed warming.  Feel better now that the magnitude of your histrionics is made clear?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear.  That question was directed at Muhammed.
> ...



Alright.  You're a hypocrite.  And an ignorant troll.  Happy?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Tell me rocks, do you believe in back conduction?...that is energy transfer from a cool object to a warm object when the two are in physical contact?  If you do, can you give us an observed measured example?
[/quote]

I have two steel bars a meter in length.  One end of each bar is maintained at 100C.  The other end of the first bar is chilled to 0C, the other end of the second bar is chilled to -100C.

I turn off the temperature controls and wait 30 seconds, then measure the temperature of the hotter ends of both bars.  What will I find?

I will find that the hot end of the bar with the warmer cold end is significantly warmer than the hot end of the bar with the colder end.

The rate at which heat is conducted across a piece of material depends on the temperature difference across which it is moving.  The effect is precisely analogous to net radiation between two bodies of different temperature.  The rate of energy flow is dependent on the TWO temperatures involved.  And nothing in the process possesses intelligence.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You are projecting as much as mamooth....It isn't me who whines when someone answers a point that I didn't make specifically to them....a trait we have all seen you exhibit time after time...and yes, you are an ignorant troll as evidenced by your unwillingness to give Ian any sort of straight answer to any of his numerous pointed questions.  Me?  I give an answer and don't dance around like you...You many not like the answer, but I don't dodge.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> I will find that the hot end of the bar with the warmer cold end is significantly warmer than the hot end of the bar with the colder end.



Which just means that it conducted more energy into the cool metal...neither end received any energy from the cold metal...the amount of energy moving via conduction is a product of the temperature differential.  Now, do you still want to claim that there is, or can be back conduction?



Crick said:


> The rate at which heat is conducted across a piece of material depends on the temperature difference across which it is moving.  The effect is precisely analogous to net radiation between two bodies of different temperature.  The rate of energy flow is dependent on the TWO temperatures involved.  And nothing in the process possesses intelligence.



No back conduction and no back radiation either...as far as photons are concerned radiation is the same as conduction as they are, via spatial length dilation and time dilation in contact with their destination from the time of their origin.  Zero distance and zero time between points is the same as physical contact....unless you care to describe the difference...

Or like toddster deny relativity and claim that the Lorentz relativity equations are wrong.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Are you suggesting, as you did with radiation, that the cold end of the bar knows the temperature of the hot end and refuses to conduct in that direction?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I answered up thread.
> ...




I didn't read any of this thread until today.

I agree with SSDD that photons don't 'experience' time or distance. But there are two types of photons. Radiative photons that are created to shed energy (light) and reactive photons that transfer force in magnetic or electrical fields. Reactive photons are virtual, and do not have to conserve the usual properties, and they have the property of being additive or subtractive, but they have to have a partner to exist.

I think its funny that SSDD flips from disbelieving in photons to believing in their most esoteric qualities


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

The speed of light is not infinite.  While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does.  Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> http://
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO you are an idiot!!  You do realize that many scientists now believe that we effectively left the LIA some where between 1870 and 1910, that all ramp up seen is natural variation. And the spread of 0.1 degrees on the graphs is misleading and  done simply to get a fear response. 0.5 Deg C rise can be totally attributed to natural variation.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> So now you do believe that energy will conduct from cold to warm....ie back conduction. I am afraid that it is you who is confused toddster. No more explanation is needed as to why than the second law...neither heat nor energy will move from cold to warm without some work being done to accomplish the movement.


I don't understand your point. Anywhere in the universe energy is flying all over the place. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles can do. It only tells what can and cannot happen in large ensembles of interacting particles, ie. the nature of heat.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> The speed of light is not infinite.  While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does.  Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.




Who are you addressing this to Capt Obvious?

SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.

Do you disagree? There is a distinct possibility that this is the genesis of inertia.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So now you do believe that energy will conduct from cold to warm....ie back conduction. I am afraid that it is you who is confused toddster. No more explanation is needed as to why than the second law...neither heat nor energy will move from cold to warm without some work being done to accomplish the movement.
> ...



This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.


I read through a lot of this thread but could find no reason why he could come conceivably think that way. He seems to know physics and thermodynamic terminology but comes to conclusions that are well beyond the norms of physics.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.
> ...




I haven't read all of this thread but I have debated SSDD many times in the past. He comes from the 'Slayers' camp. They distort the definitions of physics to 'prove' that CO2 can have no impact on heat transfer. They just repeat their talking points and refuse to answer embarrassing questions. Google Spencer's 'Yes Virginia' or Willis's 'Shell' to see what I mean. In a way it is good because it sharpens your thinking to refute their points.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how energy is conducted from hot to cold. And then why it won't conduct from cold to hot. Explain in your own words. Then I'll point out your confusion.
> ...


Did I say that? Where? Link?
If you can't explain how conduction works, I can't point out your confusion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The speed of light is not infinite.  While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does.  Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.
> ...


 
*SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.*

The photon knows the temperature of its target, 100 light years away, 100 years in the future?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




he thinks so. I dont think the photon ever knows the temperature of its destination. how would it get the information? it's part of his 'rocks roll downhill' argument.


edit- I will say that virtual photons of the electro-magnetic fields do know whether there is a particle to exchange force with, otherwise they simply cease to exist with no exchange of energy. so if all photons are virtual it is possible that they do not continue to exist without checking whether a suitable partner exists. radiative photons do not seem to have all the same properties as virtual photons though.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I dont think that it is an intentional distortion. IF we simply change basic items in question, which science has not quantified, the position becomes very possible.  CO2 has little to do with increasing heat transfer but has everything to do with slowing that same process.   It is the slowing of the process in earths atmosphere that is the sticking point for most of us. SSDD's main point, as i understand it, is the convection cycle of our earth is such that CO2 has little or no impact on the rate we warm.  IF we were just a CO2 based atmosphere then the LOG formula would rule, but we are a water based atmosphere and it is not restrained by that rate of diminishing return.

The problem with the IPCC and many other theories, is they do not take into consideration that convection cycle. A slight thinning of the atmosphere by CO2 can act as a lubricant or friction reducing property. This is precisely what we are seeing with TOA measurements and LWIR release increase.  The proportional increases are linear, suggesting that CO2 is actually increasing the rate of cooling by a secondary and unexpected effect.

IT will take some time to prove or disprove this observations causation.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...





Hahaha. Are you trying to outdo SSDD in the wacko theory department?

Sorry, I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Please tell us more.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Are you suggesting, as you did with radiation, that the cold end of the bar knows the temperature of the hot end and refuses to conduct in that direction?



Im not suggesting any knowledge at all but i am saying that energy won't conduct from the cooler portion of the bar to the warmer portion of the bar.  If you are claiming back conduction you truly are an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> I didn't read any of this thread until today.
> 
> I agree with SSDD that photons don't 'experience' time or distance. But there are two types of photons. Radiative photons that are created to shed energy (light) and reactive photons that transfer force in magnetic or electrical fields. Reactive photons are virtual, and do not have to conserve the usual properties, and they have the property of being additive or subtractive, but they have to have a partner to exist.
> 
> I think its funny that SSDD flips from disbelieving in photons to believing in their most esoteric qualities



As I have said, I don't think photons exist...I believe it is al EM waves with properties that we don't yet understand...but if you are going to believe in photons, then you have to grant them their own point of view and accept that the universe looks a lot different to a photon than it does to us...no matter which direction a photon may go, it is there in zero time and has travelled zero distance to get there and therefore, energy transfer via radiation is no different from energy transfer via direct contact...ie conduction.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> The speed of light is not infinite.  While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does.  Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.



So you are going to deny relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations as well?  No matter where a photon is going, the time it takes it to get there and the distance it travels is zero.  

Tell me crick, if you could actually see a photon from its point of origin, on its way to wherever, what do you think it would look like...according to physics?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> I don't understand your point. Anywhere in the universe energy is flying all over the place. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles can do. It only tells what can and cannot happen in large ensembles of interacting particles, ie. the nature of heat.



Read the second law...it doesn't restrict itself to large assemblages of anything...the second law is an absolute statement.  Let me know when it gets changed to exclude individual particles if, individual particles (photons) in fact exist.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The speed of light is not infinite.  While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does.  Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.
> ...



I am terribly glad that I have finally found a way to explain my position such that you don't think some sort of intelligence is required on the part of the photon.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So Ian, given that from a photon's reference point it sees every possible destination as if it were in physical contact...ie zero time zero distance, do you agree that the rules for radiative transfer of energy should be very much the same as the rules for energy transfer via conduction?  If not what is the difference between physical contact and zero time zero distance between bodies?

I guess I should ask if you think energy can migrate from cool to warm via conduction.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

joe postma believes that you can 'seed' a sphere with point power sources in such a way that you can create an even temperature differential from centre to surface. do you also believe this?

it is the core assumption in his rebuttal of willis's shell thought experiment. that heat can pass through objects without needing to have a temperature differential.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Maybe I have hit on a way to describe what I have been trying to say all along.  Some while back, I made this observation and you mentioned that a photon exists at every point between its origin and its destination....something clicked and that led me to dig into what that might look like and I found the zero time and zero distance element as described by the Lorentz relativity equations.  Zero time and zero distance is no different from physical contact and so far I haven't found anyone who suggests that back conduction is possible.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did I say that? Where? Link?
> If you can't explain how conduction works, I can't point out your confusion.



I am not playing you game any longer.  Either you accept that from the photon's reference point, there is zero time and zero distance to any possible destination which is the same as physical contact or you reject relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations.  

And you either do believe back conduction can happen or you don't.  If you don't then the above should put an end to your thoughts of back radiation....if you do believe back conduction is possible...then you are a true wacko...enough said.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I see all radiative gas molecules except water vapor not as a blanket that keeps us warm, but holes in that blanket that allow the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.  If there were no radiative gasses in our atmosphere except water vapor, the planet would be warmer.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




every point along a straight line (from its perspective).

why are you trying to conflate radiation with the much more complicated conduction? if you are asking me whether I think radiation (in all directions) is part of the conduction process, then yes I do. I see no physical processes that prohibit energy release but I think phonons have a quasi-matter like property that prohibits two of them occupying the same space (edit- at the same time). in much the same way as electrons flow through a wire according to net force because they have physical restrictions that disallow them from being in the same space (edit- at the same time) or travelling through each other. edit- photons do not have this restriction, they can exist in the same space at the same time and they can pass through each other with no transfer of energy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> every point along a straight line (from its perspective).



What about when the path is bent due to a gravity field?  Does the photon cease to exist along whatever curve it takes until it gets back on a straight line?



IanC said:


> why are you trying to conflate radiation with the much more complicated conduction? if you are asking me whether I think radiation (in all directions) is part of the conduction process, then yes I do. I see no physical processes that prohibit energy release but I think phonons have a quasi-matter like property that prohibits two of them occupying the same space. in much the same way as electrons flow through a wire according to net force because they have physical restrictions that disallow them from being in the same space or travelling through each other.



So you believe back conduction can happen?  You think energy can move from a cool body to a warm body that is in contact with it?Any examples?

And I am not trying to conflate anything....if there is zero time and zero distance between the point of origin of a photon and its destination, then how is that different from physical contact.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

You missed the whole point of special relativity.  The universe does not have a single clock.  Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.

And the some understanding of the other relativity would have made it clear to you that an object traveling a line bent by a gravitational field IS traveling in a straight line.  You need a better grip on space time.

PS, I provided you (or one of your clones) a clear example of back conduction.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Imagine orbiting a black hole at the event horizon.  Could you see any curvature in your path?  No. It'd look as straight as straight could be as far as you looked.  What would you see if you looked straight ahead of you with a powerful telescope?  You'd see your own ass.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > every point along a straight line (from its perspective).
> ...




was I not specific enough when I said 'from the photon's perspective'? the photon does not recognize distortions due to gravity, it moves in a straight line. space curvature is a relative thing.

I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?



Let's look at an iron atom in a bar of steel.  This atom has some thermal energy and so is vibrating every which way it can.  What do you believe prevents it from transferring that vibrational energy through the bonds with neighboring atoms that have a slightly higher temperature?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?
> ...




I do not have the prerequisite knowledge of phonon production and movement to give anything more than a simplistic description. 

likewise, while I believe that radiation is part of the conduction process I have never seen (or understood) any explanation that specifically mentions it. it would certainly be an interesting facet in the understanding of the insulating properties of materials other than metals


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> You missed the whole point of special relativity.  The universe does not have a single clock.  Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.
> 
> And the some understanding of the other relativity would have made it clear to you that an object traveling a line bent by a gravitational field IS traveling in a straight line.  You need a better grip on space time.
> 
> PS, I provided you (or one of your clones) a clear example of back conduction.



I have no clones...not needed..

And you provided no example of back conduction...you provided an example of energy moving from warm to cool at different rates depending on the temperature differential.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You didn't make yourself clear to me.  This statement seemed to say that you do think back conduction happens.


			
				ian said:
			
		

> if you are asking me whether I think radiation (in all directions) is part of the conduction process, then yes I do. I see no physical processes that prohibit energy release....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?
> ...



Don't know the fundamental mechanism that prevents energy from moving from cool to warm any more than I can describe the fundamental mechanism by which gravity works.  Wish I did....there would surely be not only a nobel in it but the possibility of changing that fundamental mechanism.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2015)

Ummm...........hate to break it to the k00ks but 2 months ago was the coldest February in Canada in recorded history = fAiL.

February 2015 coldest in 115 years CTV Ottawa News

Global what???


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD- I asked you about Postma's belief that it is possible to have a heated sphere with no temperature gradient, on one of these threads. It seems to be the main assumption of his rebuttal of the shell over sphere problem. Any thoughts?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?





Crick said:


> Let's look at an iron atom in a bar of steel.  This atom has some thermal energy and so is vibrating every which way it can.  What do you believe prevents it from transferring that vibrational energy through the bonds with neighboring atoms that have a slightly higher temperature?





SSDD said:


> Don't know the fundamental mechanism that prevents energy from moving from cool to warm any more than I can describe the fundamental mechanism by which gravity works.  Wish I did....there would surely be not only a nobel in it but the possibility of changing that fundamental mechanism.



Then can you explain why the speed with which heat energy conducts through matter is dependent on the slope of the thermal gradient?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your point. Anywhere in the universe energy is flying all over the place. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles can do. It only tells what can and cannot happen in large ensembles of interacting particles, ie. the nature of heat.
> ...


The second law involves the flow of heat. You can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. You can't even show the second law is valid without assuming an ensemble of particles. So there is no need to change anything because it already excludes individual particles.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I wonder, would two pieces of wood still ignite if there was some minute substance which prevented the friction between them to create heat? Water vapor is similar to the wood in the molecular size. Creating any minuet amount of space reduces friction and thus heat manifested in our troposphere.  One of the main premises of CAGW theroy is that heat production.  Tell me why it does not occur. What is stopping it from manifesting?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Long chains of cellulose are similar in size to water vapour. You may have explain that in more depth


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Did I say that? Where? Link?
> ...


 
I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.

*And you either do believe back conduction can happen or you don't.*

As I already said, if you explain how conduction moves energy from hot to cold, I'll clear up your confusion.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't read any of this thread until today.
> ...




The universe has an arrow of time. Just because there is no time in the photon's reference that doesn't mean there isn't time and distance in ours.

Conduction is different than plain radiation. The packets of energy are much larger. Conduction is more efficient although it needs matter to propigate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> You missed the whole point of special relativity.  The universe does not have a single clock.  Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.
> 
> And the some understanding of the other relativity would have made it clear to you that an object traveling a line bent by a gravitational field IS traveling in a straight line.  You need a better grip on space time.
> 
> PS, I provided you (or one of your clones) a clear example of back conduction.


* 
Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.*

*^*
This


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yah, I'd like to hear that too. Although I'm not sure that my confusion would be gone.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> I am not playing you game any longer. Either you accept that from the photon's reference point, there is zero time and zero distance to any possible destination which is the same as physical contact or you reject relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations.


Write down the Lorentz transformation. Try to transform to a new reference frame that is moving at the speed of a photon - simply plug in the velocity of a photon as the velocity of the new reference frame. You will notice that the Lorentz transformation blows up to infinity. It simply doesn't work.  

In short if you want to use a reference frame moving at the speed of light, you simply have to reject the Lorentz transformation as having any meaning. Or more accurately, you shouldn't use a reference frame at the speed of light.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD- I asked you about Postma's belief that it is possible to have a heated sphere with no temperature gradient, on one of these threads. It seems to be the main assumption of his rebuttal of the shell over sphere problem. Any thoughts?



I'd have to see his case...never heard of it.  Contrary to popular belief, I am not over that way much at all.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?
> ...



The why goes back to the fundamental mechanism which neither I nor you, nor anyone else knows.  In order to know why, one must know the fundamental mechanism...we know that it is, but not why it is.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The second law was written before particles were even hypothetical and it hasn't changed with the advent of theoretical particles.  Sorry.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.



Of course you don't...which is why you are still trying to impose time in the form of future on an entity that does not experience time.  And are you calling relativity and the Lorentz equations wrong?  Again, apply the Lorentz relativity equations to a photon moving at the speed of light...from its point of view, travel time to anywhere is zero and distance is zero.  Face it toddster, if you are going to believe in photons then you must believe in them as physics has described them....unless you know something that physics doesn't know.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> As I already said, if you explain how conduction moves energy from hot to cold, I'll clear up your confusion.



I told you....I'm not explaining anything to you.  It is pointless if it doesn't mesh with your dogma as evidenced by the fact that you are still tying to impose time and distance on a particle that experiences neither.  This is apparently over your head.  If you wan't to know how energy moves via conduction, I am sure that you can look it up on google.  You might also try looking into relativity as well and try and get a grasp on what the universe would be like if you were sitting on a photon.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Yah, I'd like to hear that too. Although I'm not sure that my confusion would be gone.



Not sure what you are confused about.  You acknowledge that photons experience neither distance nor time...you acknowledge that zero distance from point A to point B is the same as physical contact....you acknowledge that back conduction doesn't happen.  The sticking point seems to be that you can't apply what you accept in that regard and see that it means that what you accept in the back radiation department is a falsehood.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the whole point of special relativity.  The universe does not have a single clock.  Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.
> ...




Irrelevant from the photon's point of view.  Again, you have to be able to wrap your mind around a few things.  The first being that your point of view is meaningless to what is happening to a photon.  The second is that if you believe in photons, then you must believe that in fact, from the photon's point of view, the distance from its point of origin to anywhere in the universe is zero...and the time it takes to get there is zero....

You didn't answer my question (like that is something new)...if you could see a photon at its point of origin and it was going to point B a few light years away, what do you think it would look like?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.
> ...


 
*And are you calling relativity and the Lorentz equations wrong?*

No, I'm calling you and your magic waves wrong.

*I told you....I'm not explaining anything to you.*

You haven't before, why start now? LOL!

*If you wan't to know how energy moves via conduction, I am sure that you can look it up on google.*

I know how it moves, I don't know what your incorrect understanding is, so how can I correct your error?

*get a grasp on what the universe would be like if you were sitting on a photon.*

I'd be able to see the future, so I could decide whether to radiate in any given direction? 
Still hilarious!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The second law involves the flow of heat. You can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. You can't even show the second law is valid without assuming an ensemble of particles. So there is no need to change anything because it already excludes individual particles.
> ...


That is a non-answer. Matter is now known to be composed of molecules. Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance that was not known before 1900. We now know that you can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. Do you deny that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


 
*Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance*

Based on his twisted "understanding", it can't be random.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance*
> 
> Based on his twisted "understanding", it can't be random.


Well, I'm new to this board and I don't know his thinking(?) as well as you, but he seems to be stuck in the past of classical physics. Yet he keeps making nonsensical remarks involving modern physics. I don't think he understands either. If I were to guess, I would think he is a troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance*
> ...


 
I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
> To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
> He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.


Does he really believe what he writes or is he simply an obstinate contrarian. If it's the latter, I would say he is a troll just having fun slinging around whatever physics he dreams up.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I'm calling you and your magic waves wrong.




Strawman...we aren't talking about waves here...we are talking about photons.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You haven't before, why start now? LOL!



Thats a lie and you know it.  I have tried very hard here to explain what the universe is like to a photon for you but clearly you just can't get it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know how it moves, I don't know what your incorrect understanding is, so how can I correct your error?



Do you think it moves from cool areas to warm?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd be able to see the future, so I could decide whether to radiate in any given direction?
> Still hilarious!



Still trying to impose your point of view on a photon...if you were sitting on a photon, you wouldn't experience time so future would be a meaningless term to you.  Does energy move in any given direction between bodies that are in contact but are different temperatures?  Of course it doesn't...same for photons since the distance between them and all possible destinations is zero.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> That is a non-answer. Matter is now known to be composed of molecules.



You are equating photons to molecules?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance that was not known before 1900. We now know that you can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. Do you deny that?



Are you calling molecules particles?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
> To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
> He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.



Lying about someones position is also a defense tactic....you have become quite dishonest toddster.  You were always one to bend the truth a bit, but now have stepped over into deliberate baldfaced lies.  Congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
> ...



Do feel free to describe how zero distance between objects is different from physical contact.  I would like to hear your take on the topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
> ...


 
You don't deny back-radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course I do, and like I said, you hide the big lie behind a small truth.  Smart radiation selective directional emission of radiation are your own fabrications and your inability to grasp that terms like future are meaningless to entities traveling at the speed of light are just failures of your own intellect.

Are you saying that a photon isn't in contact with every possible destination it might travel to at its point of origin?  Of course you are saying it...you are denying relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations....upon what basis are you denying them?  Where is your proof?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


* 
Are you saying that a photon isn't in contact with every possible destination it might travel to at its point of origin?*

Yes. If you have a reliable source that says it is, provide it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

The electric and magnetic fields make it obvious that photons know where they are going. Those that cannot find a particle to interact with simply cease to exist. Those that know they will interact become real photons and continue on to their destination.

Eg. Anti-theft sensors work with virtual photons. They do not exist long enough in our reference frame to contact even at the speed of light. Yet they do, and the device  is triggered by the transfer of energy through the field.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Long chains of cellulose are similar in size to water vapour. You may have explain that in more depth



It was an analogy comparing molecule sizes and areas of collision causing  friction heat. A water molecule is roughly 10 times larger than a CO2 molecule.  Just a few CO2 molecules will reduce the friction during convection rise, or that is the hypothesis. This does two things. one it speeds up the rate of rise and reduces the amount of latent heat left in the atmosphere from the movement.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Ten times larger? I think I would need some confirmation on that. Water has polarity but I find it hard to believe it is ten times larger.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You are equating photons to molecules?


No.


SSDD said:


> Are you calling molecules particles?


Informally.

You have ignored the original question. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles (atoms or molecules) can or cannot do. Particles in hot and cold objects can exchange kinetic or radiation energy freely. The second law only tells us that thermal energy cannot spontaneously flow from cold to hot objects. Do you deny that?


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

CO2 molecules are roughly 3 times the size of water molecules (0.3 nm to 0.1 nm)


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> Ten times larger? I think I would need some confirmation on that. Water has polarity but I find it hard to believe it is ten times larger.



molecules - What s the size of carbon dioxide - Physics Stack Exchange

CO2 molecule






The molecule is linear (all three atoms are in a co-linear line). The C=O bond is 116 pm, so the entire molecule (from centre of O to other O) is 232 pm. The extent in the other directions normal to the axis of symmetry is not well-defined as the electron cloud is diffuse and depends 
significantly on environment.

*What is the size of a water molecule Ask.com*

*FULL ANSWER*
The bonds connecting the oxygen and hydrogen atoms is nearly 96 picometers in length. Water is classified as a polar molecule based on its electronic structure. The charge of the oxygen is partially negative and the charge of the hydrogen atoms is partially positive, causing water molecules to be strongly attracted to one another. These charges occur due to a bond dipole moment of 1.85 debye.

*So the water molecule is 96 pm, and the carbon dioxide molecule is 232 pm. The carbon dioxide molecule is over twice as large as the water molecule. Once again, Billy Boob is pulling numbers out of his ass. A regular habit with him.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So zero distance between objects is different from physical contact how?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. If you have a reliable source that says it is, provide it.



Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.  The answer will be zero distance to that point and zero time to get there.  Sorry you are having such a hard time wrapping your mind around this...maybe that is why you find that you must invent smart photons, and smart radiation....you are trying to cram everything into your reference point with no realization that your reference point is meaningless to the entities in question.  You are unmoving scenery...as animated as the print on wallpaper.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

If you think you have the slightest hint of understanding of general or special relativity, think again.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you are a complete troll.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are equating photons to molecules?
> ...



I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.  The second law does't even recognize particles...the second law is about energy movement and it doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> If you think you have the slightest hint of understanding of general or special relativity, think again.
> 
> I am becoming more and more convinced that you are a complete troll.



Defense mechanism.  Did you describe the difference between zero distance between objects and physical contact?  Calling me a troll is hardly an adequate response to a question you can't answer.  Unsurprising, but hardly adequate...but then that's your MO.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.


Did you ever try to apply the Lorentz transformation to a photon? Mathematically? Try it. The Lorentz equation blows up to infinity. You are way off base if you think you can do anything meaningful with a reference frame transformation to the speed of light. That shoots your whole (non)argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. If you have a reliable source that says it is, provide it.
> ...


 
So the only source is your imagination?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2015)

SSDD said:


> I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.


I agree with that.


SSDD said:


> ...the second law is about energy movement and it doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen.


That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:  

"...the second law is about *heat* movement and it (*heat* energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."

I hope that clears up your confusion.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.
> ...




I think undefined (division by zero) is more correct but the idea is right. You cannot compare our reference frame to that of a photon's in any meaningful way.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.
> ...




Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.


Well, his worldview is collapsed. Either he doesn't realize that or he does at some level and just likes to take a stance for the sake of cantankerous rhetoric.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> The electric and magnetic fields make it obvious that photons know where they are going. Those that cannot find a particle to interact with simply cease to exist. Those that know they will interact become real photons and continue on to their destination.
> 
> Eg. Anti-theft sensors work with virtual photons. They do not exist long enough in our reference frame to contact even at the speed of light. Yet they do, and the device  is triggered by the transfer of energy through the field.




Ian, do you really believe in virtual photons, or are they more likely simply another ad hoc explanation for something that we, at present, remain in the dark on?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.
> ...



I can't help but notice that you haven't described the difference between zero distance and zero time between bodies and physical contact.


----------



## Politico (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency
> ...


Don't forget the reducing of cow farts. All hail Kale!!!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No argument...just more defensive sarcasm.  Gotcha.  Working on some more fantasy arguments like your smart photons in an effort to compensate the failure of your intellect to grasp this?

Interesting that Wuwei shows up just when you are feeling some pressure here and makes 11 of his 14 total posts in a three way discussion between you and me....can you spell sock.  This must really be stressful to you to feel the need to bring in an alternate personality who can no more answer the questions being asked than you.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:
> 
> "...the second law is about *heat* movement and it (*heat* energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."
> 
> I hope that clears up your confusion.



Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Perhaps you can answer my question Ian...is heat a form of energy, or is heat the result of energy moving from one place to another.   I think we have been through this once  before and you final answer is that it doesn't matter but as you can see, if the whole issue rests on a single word, then everything about that one word matters.  So which is it...energy, or the evidence of energy moving from one place to another.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.
> ...




Sounding more like toddster every post.


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?



The reason you get no answers is the abysmal form of your question.

The word "heat" is a symbol to which meaning is attached by the user.  A very strong majority of such users intend it to convey a form of energy, which, like all energy, certainly has the ability to move.  But in the second part of your question, you bring up "_another_ form of energy" moving.  So to answer your question we get to choose between one completely unidentified form of energy and the MOVEMENT of some OTHER form of completely unidentified energy.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?
> ...



No answer....As we have already been through this, I thought that perhaps you might have a clue.   We found equally credible sources stating that heat was a form of energy in itself and that heat was, in essence, only the physical evidence that some form of energy was moving from one place to another....and the equally credible sources made their statements in absolute terms...not weasel words as you like to use.

  It does matter if one is actually interested in the topic.  You are interested only so far as it effects your dogma.


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

I have no interest in your stupidity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
So the only source is your imagination?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.
> ...


so are you saying that cold photons can make warm photons warmer with heat energy? It seems everyone on here, except SSDD, are avoiding answering the main question, can cold radiated waves make warm radiated waves warmer?  I thought, and I'm no expert, but I thought the theory of back radiation would make something warmer?  And, I have not seen or read about any experiment that proves back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:
> ...


I see it as he believes that cool photons make warm photons warmer producing heat energy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So the only source is your imagination?



My source is the Lorentz relativity equations....feel free to apply them to a photon moving at the speed of light and see if you get an answer other than zero distance and zero time to anywhere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so are you saying that cold photons can make warm photons warmer with heat energy? It seems everyone on here, except SSDD, are avoiding answering the main question, can cold radiated waves make warm radiated waves warmer?  I thought, and I'm no expert, but I thought the theory of back radiation would make something warmer?  And, I have not seen or read about any experiment that proves back radiation.




And if you don't have back radiation, the whole AGW hoax falls flat on its face.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



What they believe makes no sense if you think the second law of thermodynamics means what it says.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?
> ...


dude rubbing two sticks together will create heat, so energy is what produces heat.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have no interest in your stupidity.


so you can't or won't answer whether cold photons make heat energy?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It is apparently an undecided issue in the world of science....I have found credible sources that state flatly that heat is a form of energy and equally credible sources that say flatly that heat is not a form of energy but the fingerprint, if you will, of the movement of energy from one place to another.  

It is an important distinction because the whole heat/energy thing is their go to argument regarding the second law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So the only source is your imagination?
> ...


 
The only source of this unique interpretation is you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have no interest in your stupidity.
> ...


 
You should probably stop.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




jc - you, and many others, simply dont understand that you are framing the question incorrectly. the Sun is warming the surface. back radiation is changing the local conditions so that less energy can leave the surface. the equilibrium temperature of the surface depends on energy in but also energy out. if the atmosphere above the surface increases in temperature then the surface below will also increase in temperature (everything else remaining the same). 

does CO2 increase the atmosphere's temp? yes! why do I say that? CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR which is roughly 8% of the surface's emission. that IR is completely absorbed in about 10 meters. if you add more CO2 then the extinction length decreases to less than 10 meters. therefore that 8% of the surface energy has been absorbed by less volume of air. same energy in a smaller volume translates into higher temperature. 

there are dozens of angles to look at this problem from. all the ones I see lead to warming from CO2. how much warming? much less than we are being told. that is why a legitimate 120 ppm CO2 increase experiment is nowhere to be found. I should clarify that. CO2 increase from 280- 400 ppm. CO2 increase from 0-120 ppm would be much more significant.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


nope, you're wrong. And you fail to answer the question.  Does cold make warm warmer.? Still haven't answered, fifteen flippin pages and you beat around the question.  Answer it then.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
You're even dumber than SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


aren't I then in the majority of the population?  How do you convince someone of something if you can't figure it out? I can read, I can go to internet site after site, and as of yet, this morning april 20, 2015  no one has any evidence of back radiation causing warming.  None.

Edit; so you want me to believe that if you have a jar with a temperature at 90 degrees F and add CO2 that the jar will automatically get warmer.  Nope i don't believe it.  I need proof.  Dude, I've stated that over and over again in this forum.  Frank has too.  Yet, none. Tell me how I'm wrong.  Just someone with all this special knowledge produce one simple friggin experiment proving it?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes I am, he's way over my head.  I'm logical, and you fail logic.  And, to the dummy me, you still haven't answered the question.  Can we go fifteen more pages or you can simply acknowledge you have no proof?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*Does cold make warm warmer.?*

Of course not. Put an ice cube in your warm Coke. See for yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface.  I ask for proof.  None is given.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface.* 

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.

* I ask for proof. None is given.*

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




again, the Sun does the work of warming the surface. I agree with you that the semantics of saying the cooler ( edit- cool not cooler, any time the atmosphere is warmer than space it causes the surface to warm) atmosphere is warming the surface is confusing. but the cooler atmosphere does cause conditions thatlead to a warmer surface.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And I have never argued against that.  I merely argue that it isn't CO2 that has anything to do with anything.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.


No, but, cold can't make warm warmer.  Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.
You have  never told me if you did the math of the Lorentz transformation. If you did, was there a division by zero?  
But I will bite. Suppose zero distance means contact. Of course the Lorentz transformation blow up still means that what you think about the photon contact is meaningless.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.
> ...




okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:
> ...


The meaning of the term "heat" would come from the context that you used, the old form of the SLoT,
Clausius in the 1850's:
"Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."
Notice he uses the word "heat" and not "energy".


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It may appear that way, but I don't believe everything that Todd seems to believe. I simply think you are confused about physics.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


not to be a smartass, but what if that towel was ice, would it still get as hot?  Get a guy on fire and throw a towel over him he goes out.  There are many games that can be played.  The fact is there is no evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will add heat.  Do you supposed the thickness of the towel matters, sure it does.  It's fabric and is heavy and dense.  We know that as CO2 rises, it becomes lighter. It's the only way it can get into the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The concept of CO2 as a GHG is difficult to put in a few lines on a forum. The easiest to understand explanation I have found is at the site:
Simple Models of Climate
There is a lot of history there. Skip down about 10% of the way to the paragraph that starts out, _"Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works."_
However the link I gave you should land you there anyway._
_


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> My source is the Lorentz relativity equations....feel free to apply them to a photon moving at the speed of light and see if you get an answer other than zero distance and zero time to anywhere.


You should really try it yourself first before asking some else to do it. You will find a division by zero.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




If the amp was in a -40 freezer it would have a lower equilibrium temp than if you placed inside a box made of ice, inside the freezer.

Did the ice make the amp warmer? Semantics. The amp was warmer and the ice 'caused' it to be warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph.  I read through much of this article, not all of it.  In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago.  Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index.  Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is.  Not CO2.  There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2.  They state that in that article.  They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.

I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."

what is a good part?  Why can't they put a number on it?  I'll tell you why, because they don't know.  Does CO2 cause warming, no.  Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes.  How much?  No one can say, or at least is offering any number.  How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number.  10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number.  Why?  Can you answer why a number can't be provided?


----------



## Aktas (Apr 20, 2015)

Ice Age or Hot Age


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I agree, poor analogy on my part.  ice is not porous, so the mere mass of the ice would restrict airflow, making the amp warmer. So, you're right it would allow the amp to become warmer than not having ice on it. And yes in a -40 degree freezer it would stay cooler but still expel  heat so equilibrium would be lower.

But CO2 is not a blanket, it is a gas with properties that only allow it to absorb so much heat and then saturate.  Once saturated it can no longer absorb and thus any additional heat will be sent to space. So what is the amount of heat 400PPM of CO2 can hold to keep the earth warm.  Me, I believe it was saturated ~ 280 PPM of CO2.  So the blanket is a blanket at this point, no more thickness to the blanket can be achieved. And, again, I am not saying there is back radiation, I will agree it limits the flow through of heat into space.  if it were a gas that actually warmed, then the desert wouldn't reach cold temperatures at night.  I just can't logically accept that 120 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere adds heat.  There is no evidence, nor is there an experiment to prove it.

Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.
> 
> I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."
> 
> what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?


The scope of the article was not quantitative. It simply was a qualitative explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon. It was not a treatise on AGW, and you shouldn't have tried to read that into it. If you read the whole article you would see that there were no numbers given anywhere. My major reason in pointing out the article is so that you might have more knowledge so that you could understand IANC better. The article clearly says why the TOA is so important in understanding the climate in general.  

Your conclusion about the lack of new knowledge for 100 years is wrong. If you are interested in science history, go back to the beginning of the article. That gives the history.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.
> ...


I did read it, and again, there is nothing known today that wasn't known then.  I read it looking for an observation. What was it, that CO2 can make water vapor?  So the only water vapor is from CO2, is that what you think it's saying.  I thought the oceans and other bodies of water provided water vapor?  hmmmm, I missed that.

Dude, again, I trust most all of what Ian writes.  he believes a little differently than me, but for the most part I believe he is in pursuit of understanding how the atmosphere works.  I only care because some punk said we're all gonna die unless we stop breathing. Doh!! if I stop breathing, I .......  Therefore I ask, prove to me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures.  And you know what? The answer to that is ..............................................I'm still waiting. You've provided no answer to that question. back radiation black bodies all of that crap, means nothing to me.  What does is this question.... what does 120 PPM of CO2 do to temperatures?  Give me a number as well.  I've evolved a little for an additional request.

oh, oh, one additional thing, the thing that motivates me is when someone uses the word consensus and then can't back it up.  no one on the warmer side can do that. So.....here we are. I have my views for which someone wants me to die for.  huh?  What kind of messed up crap is that? I say, anytime to each and everyone of those k00ks.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> But CO2 is not a blanket, it is a gas with properties that only allow it to absorb so much heat and then saturate. Once saturated it can no longer absorb and thus any additional heat will be sent to space.


CO2 can absorb LWIR but any heat is immediately dispersed in the surrounding atmosphere. The CO2 is intimately mixed with the atmosphere and very quickly becomes the same temperature as its immediate environment (mostly O2 and N2). In short, CO2 does not store heat any differently than the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > But CO2 is not a blanket, it is a gas with properties that only allow it to absorb so much heat and then saturate. Once saturated it can no longer absorb and thus any additional heat will be sent to space.
> ...


agreed, but that heat is in the atmosphere and only limits the heat from escaping from the surface and flushing directly to space.  However, at night with no clouds, it does get quite cold on the surface so it is subject to the sun rays.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I read they entire article. They are very objective scientifically. But it is a very hard read. It looks like you misread some of it. If you don't agree with what it says I'm not going to argue further because the physics is too complex for a forum discussion. 

Also I am not a punk kook who thinks the earth will disintegrate. I have a great skepticism of CAGW and a bit of skepticism of AGW. My attitude may change in 20 years when we see how the climate is heading. You certainly have a right to be skeptical, but I'm not going to call anyone on either side of the debate a kook unless that person has silly ideas on the science. There is enough reason to be skeptical without having to resort to ridicule or ridiculous ideas.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


you know what, I completely agree with your position and you have your rights.  As do I and many others on here.  Because I choose not to believe does not make me a denier.  I take much exception to the term and it is not the skeptic's side making the statement.  So the undisciplined discussions result of a matter of name calling from the warmers with the word "denier".  Starts right there and ends there.I've never heard of science or physic teachers calling individuals deniers.  Nor use the word consensus until climate folk came along and one politician, and you know of him.  Threats as well, jail time, killing those who don't believe.  Naw, i think you need to read the warmer side.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The only source of this unique interpretation is you?



What is to interpret?  Zero is zero.  Zero distance and zero time are hardly open for interpretation.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 20, 2015)

It's pitiful that capitalists destroy the environment and attempt to shit all over a real threat.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc - you, and many others, simply dont understand that you are framing the question incorrectly. the Sun is warming the surface. back radiation is changing the local conditions so that less energy can leave the surface.



There is no back radiation.



IanC said:


> does CO2 increase the atmosphere's temp? yes!



Yes it does but only in so far as it increases the mass of the atmosphere.



IanC said:


> why do I say that? CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR which is roughly 8% of the surface's emission. that IR is completely absorbed in about 10 meters. if you add more CO2 then the extinction length decreases to less than 10 meters. therefore that 8% of the surface energy has been absorbed by less volume of air. same energy in a smaller volume translates into higher temperature.



Absorbed and immediately emitted on to space...there is no retention of heat in any greenhouse gas other than H2O



IanC said:


> there are dozens of angles to look at this problem from. all the ones I see lead to warming from CO2.



That is because you are a warmer and can't see anything else.  You couldn't acknowledge zero or less even if you were given incontrovertible evidence...even when the hoax has died, you will continue to believe in some radiative warming.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?



That blanket has to do with convection...radiation does not play a part.  If you want to imagine that the atmosphere is a blanket, then all so called greenhouse gas molecules, with the exception of water, are holes in that blanket.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Marxist said:


> It's pitiful that capitalists destroy the environment and attempt to shit all over a real threat.



Polution, misuse of natural resources, poor land use...those are real threats...that wisp of CO2 that you so fear has no power to do anything other than suck the air out of the room so that actual issues which can be dealt with are shoved to the sidelines.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The only source of this unique interpretation is you?
> ...




You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light  bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons. 

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.



I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same.  I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.



Wuwei said:


> Suppose zero distance means contact. Of course the Lorentz transformation blow up still means that what you think about the photon contact is meaningless.



They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics.  What do you mean by blow up?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?
> ...




Can you expand that whole 'holes in the blanket' thing? It is not immediately obvious to me.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light  bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.



We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.



IanC said:


> But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.



If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question.  If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see?  Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.
> ...




Division by zero leads to a discontinuity. Lewis Carroll had a wonderful puzzle that 'proved' 1=2. It had a term that led to division by zero but well disguised. Ranges in calculus often restrict zero.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




OK...I'll try.  In our atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen and the other trace non "greenhouse" gasses would be the blanket, if you wan't to imagine the atmosphere as a blanket.  They are the gasses that actually accumulate energy escaping from the surface via convection. The radiative gasses, serve to cool the atmosphere by radiating away that accumulating heat.  The non radiative gasses are the blanket because they can only move energy out via conduction and convection.  If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by whatever percentage of energy radiation moves out of the lower atmosphere.   A few percent at best I think.  So the radiative gas molecules are holes in the blanket composed of non radiative gasses.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Perhaps, but the fact remains that from a photon's perspective, the distance to anywhere is zero.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light  bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.
> ...





SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light  bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.
> ...




Perhaps more like a chain, with alternating electro/magnetic cycles. It has to know if it synches up with the target as attractive or repulsive. Radiative photons just go.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Ahhhh. But even without GHGs the atmosphere still produces blackbody radiation from collisions. In fact that is where the energy absorbed by CO2 predominantly ends up.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Perhaps more like a chain, with alternating electro/magnetic cycles. It has to know if it synches up with the target as attractive or repulsive. Radiative photons just go.



Just go?  You sure about that?  Bet your life on it sure?  Why just go to a place vibrating at a higher frequency if they have already experienced it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And the blanket would just be warmer...radiative gas molecules are holes in the blanket.  Do you really argue that the atmosphere would be cooler if it had no means to radiatively cool itself in the lower atmosphere?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.*
Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation, you know where the cold atmosphere pushes IR waves back to the surface.  Funny how the internet sources can't seem to provide an experiment.  But hey, I'm no scientist and I have a low IQ, but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it.  strange.
*
Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why*
because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm.  BTW, mine is 66 degrees before I use it.   It isn't made of CO2 so I don't understand the anomaly. Perhaps it's due to my low IQ I bet ya.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between?  That is if all things radiate.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between?  That is if all things radiate.



They are already there....those photons from the target are moving at the speed of light also..  That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like...they are all zero distance away from each other....I can't see how it is any different from conduction which most people readily agree isn't subject to energy moving uphill from a cooler area to a warmer area.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Photons aren't matter. Two photons or a billion can be in the exact same place at the exact same time and they don't know the others are there. It is only when they start interacting with matter that they stop being just a probability wave and condense into something that can be measured.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Photons aren't matter. Two photons or a billion can be in the exact same place at the exact same time and they don't know the others are there. It is only when they start interacting with matter that they stop being just a probability wave and condense into something that can be measured.



Would it be so painful for you to say theoretically?  You talk about photons as if you knew they exist and knew exactly what they were doing?  Your claim that some burglar alarm worked on virtual photons was patently ridiculous...a device designed explicitly to operate with theoretical particles....really?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between?  That is if all things radiate.
> ...




Conduction intimately involves matter. Read up on it. I don't understand it well enough to make any sort of coherent explanation. It's kind of like a pulse of a group of photons that takes on quasi-matter properties by combining their momentum. It makes little sense to me.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Conduction intimately involves matter. Read up on it. I don't understand it well enough to make any sort of coherent explanation. It's kind of like a pulse of a group of photons that takes on quasi-matter properties by combining their momentum. It makes little sense to me.



How much more intimate can you get than zero distance between bodies?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Photons aren't matter. Two photons or a billion can be in the exact same place at the exact same time and they don't know the others are there. It is only when they start interacting with matter that they stop being just a probability wave and condense into something that can be measured.
> ...




Hahaha. Read up on electric motors. Or MRI machines. Virtual photons are real....wait, what??? Hahaha


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Hahaha. Read up on electric motors. Or MRI machines. Virtual photons are real....wait, what??? Hahaha



Isn't it true that a virtual photon is nothing more than a disturbance in an EM field that remains mostly not understood and the whole virtual particle thing is little more than a place holder till more is understood?

You didn't answer my question about what you think a photon might look like if you could view it from its point of origin to its destination.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Got to go practice....may look in in a few hours.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.


If you think we are the same you are insulting Todd.


SSDD said:


> They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?


Sorry. Blowup is a math vernacular that means an equation has a zero divisor or converges to zero divided by zero. 

But you forgot to pursue your contention that zero distance means contact. What if it does? Where are you trying to lead this?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation,*

Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear? 
And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.

* but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it.*

That's the lack of clouds. Glad you understand.

*because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm.* 

Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between?  That is if all things radiate.
> ...


 
*That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like*

That's why a photon from our sun won't radiate toward a star a million light years away that will go supernova in 1,000,000 years. Because zero distance means a photon can predict the temperature of something in the future. LOL!
It sounds dumber every time you say it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.
> ...


 
It's related to his smart waves/photons idea. A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.
It's a very epicycle type edifice he's been building.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Yup. That's why you can't rekindle a fire by pushing the coals together. The photons refuse to be radiated at something hot.

Sarc off/


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.


Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category. If that's the case, Earth would radiate almost all it's surface thermal energy to space.  Under equilibrium where the earth radiation output was the same as the sun radiation input, that would make the earth surface very cold (I read minus 40 degrees C). That would be an interesting question for him to answer. Or maybe he has already conjured up an answer somewhere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.
> ...


 
I'm sure he'll come up with some half-assed reason.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.
> ...



You haven't heard his gravity warms the atmosphere theory yet. Apparently it's been proven. Somewhere.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Oh damn. I don't want to go through another whacko theory discovered in some blog. If true we will have to have government laws against obesity because that significantly raises the earths mass to higher altitudes.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2015)

Note to SSDD: Here is an example of thermal energy from a cold substance hitting a warmer substance.

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The CRB reflects from the much warmer parabola dish to a ruby maser at the focal point.

This illustrates that thermal energy from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.
> ...



If zero distance is the same as physical contact, then there is no conceivable reason that the rules for energy transfer via radiation would be significantly different from the rules for energy transfer via conduction and few people who actually think would suggest that back conduction is possible while many who apparently do thing suspend their thinking to allow for back radiation....delete back radiation and the AGW hoax falls flat on its face where it belongs.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear?
> And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.




No, that is the effect of water vapor actually absorbing and holding energy...it is the only greenhouse gas capable of doing so.




guno said:


> That's the lack of clouds. Glad you understand.{/quote]
> 
> Which mark the presence of water vapor...CO2 is not a factor.





guno said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's why a photon from our sun won't radiate toward a star a million light years away that will go supernova in 1,000,000 years.




Again....meaningless argument.  You are still trying to impose your perspective on an entity that does not experience the universe in the same way as you...time and distance are meaningless terms when discussing an entity that experiences neither. 



guno said:


> Because zero distance means a photon can predict the temperature of something in the future. LOL!



Zero difference and zero time mean that "future" is a meaningless term.



guno said:


> It sounds dumber every time you say it.



The longer you remain unable to grasp that your perception of time and space don't apply to what a photon experiences the dumber you sound.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's related to his smart waves/photons idea. A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.



You never stop lying do you...even to yourself.  The whole smart waves photons idea is your creation, resulting from your own intellectual failure.....just like now, trying to impose time and distance on to a photon that experiences neither.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's related to his smart waves/photons idea. A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.
> ...



Tell me toddster...if you have a body radiating out in all directions and you bring another, warmer body into physical contact with it, do you still believe it is transferring energy into the warmer body it is in contact with?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category.



Water, unlike all other so called greenhouse gasses can absorb and retain energy rather than absorb and immediately emit.  Water absorbs and retains but no so called greenhouse gas radiates back to the surface except during rare inversions where the surface is cooler than the local atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Tell me Ian, if the mass of an atmosphere can't generate heat, why is the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus warmer than the bottom of the troposphere here on earth on a planet that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system?  It certainly isn't a greenhouse effect at work...and it isn't the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism at work....so why if not the mass of the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Oh damn. I don't want to go through another whacko theory discovered in some blog. If true we will have to have government laws against obesity because that significantly raises the earths mass to higher altitudes.



Interesting....the results of over 800 repeatable experiments can't even make a scratch on the dogma of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

God are you stupid.

The way you rattle this shit off (and it is ALL shit) how could you get the idea that the atmosphere, sitting there doing nothing, could generate energy?  Doesn't that ring any bells for you? Conservation.....of.... c'mon, I know you've heard of it.

You are nothing but a fooking troll.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Note to SSDD: Here is an example of thermal energy from a cold substance hitting a warmer substance.
> 
> The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The CRB reflects from the much warmer parabola dish to a ruby maser at the focal point.
> 
> This illustrates that thermal energy from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.



Sorry. but it doesn't.  Funny how willing people are to fool themselves with their instrumentation.  A radio telescope was used to first record CMB.  A radio telescope tunes to varying resonance frequencies of an antenna which, in turn creates an electrical signal which then gets amplified in order to create a recording over a particular frequency or spectrum.

Then that recording is matched up to a black body spectrum in accordance with Plank's law and the peak of that recording is used to determine the temperature from which a radiance can be determined, again,  using Plank's law.  The recorded spectrum is being translated, using Plank's law into a radiance  which is measured in W/m2.

A radio spectrum is being recorded and from that a radiance is being computed....similar in many ways to the so called measurements of back radiation....no actual measurement is being made...the measurements are artifacts of mathematical models...not actual measurements of radiation.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Funny how willing people are to fool themselves



Or just lie, because THEY ARE TROLLS.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.
> 
> The way you rattle this shit off (and it is ALL shit) how could you get the idea that the atmosphere, sitting there doing nothing, could generate energy?  Doesn't that ring any bells for you? Conservation.....of.... c'mon, I know you've heard of it.
> 
> You are nothing but a fooking troll.



You think the atmosphere is doing nothing?  Interesting.  You don't think pressure constitutes work?


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The CRB reflects from the much warmer parabola dish to a ruby maser at the focal point.
> 
> This illustrates that thermal energy from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.



Sorry. but it doesn't.  Funny how willing people are to fool themselves with their instrumentation.  A radio telescope was used to first record CMB.  A radio telescope tunes to varying resonance frequencies of an antenna which, in turn creates an electrical signal which then gets amplified in order to create a recording over a particular frequency or spectrum.

Then that recording is matched up to a black body spectrum in accordance with Plank's law and the peak of that recording is used to determine the temperature from which a radiance can be determined, again,  using Plank's law.  The recorded spectrum is being translated, using Plank's law into a radiance  which is measured in W/m2.

A radio spectrum is being recorded and from that a radiance is being computed....similar in many ways to the so called measurements of back radiation....no actual measurement is being made...the measurements are artifacts of mathematical models...not actual measurements of radiation.[/QUOTE]


That is the stupidest line of shit I have ever seen

Signal level in receivers is measured with a voltmeter you ignorant twit.  

God are you stupid.  And a FUCKING troll to boot.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You don't think pressure constitutes work?



You DO?  Oh jesus.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how willing people are to fool themselves
> ...




Sorry crick, but you appear far more of a troll than I ever could.  At least I attempt to explain my points in my own words...you on the other hand never attempt to explain your position...you constantly dance around and move the subject so you don't have to answer...anyone who has seen Ian mop the floor with you knows , and has seen this to be true.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> That is the stupidest line of shit I have ever seen
> 
> Signal level in receivers is measured with a voltmeter you ignorant twit.
> 
> God are you stupid.  And a FUCKING troll to boot.



Go learn something crick....of what use is an instrument, or instrument data to you if you don't even know what the instrument is measuring.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> You think the atmosphere is doing nothing?  Interesting.  You don't think pressure constitutes work?



You DO?  Oh jesus.[/QUOTE]

So you do think the atmosphere is really doing nothing?  OK.  Laughing my ass off at you, but OK.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear?
> ...




Something holding energy thousands of feet away makes it warmer on the ground?
Please explain further.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's related to his smart waves/photons idea. A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.
> ...


 
*The whole smart waves photons idea is your creation*

A wave that can tell the temperature of every particle it could posibly touch, anywhere in the universe, all at once....that's not a smart wave?

Just how much information is that? That has to be more than any supercomputer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's why a photon from our sun won't radiate toward a star a million light years away that will go supernova in 1,000,000 years.
> ...


 



"future is a meaningless term" ≠ "a photon knows the temperature of every particle is can see, all at once"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 
As soon as you explain how conduction transfers energy, I'll point out where you're confused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Note to SSDD: Here is an example of thermal energy from a cold substance hitting a warmer substance.
> ...


 
*A radio spectrum is being recorded and from that a radiance is being computed....not actual measurements of radiation.*

A radio wave isn't actually radiation?
What is it?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear? 
And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.*
water vapor not CO2 first off, and do the clouds imply back radiation exists, or the heat cannot escape through the denseness of the cloud acting like a lower atmosphere.

*Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD*
So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter, same as hair on top of your head if you're lucky to still have some. I doubt the blanket gets warmer and it merely restricts outbound heat.  Not similar to CO2.  So you would have to prove to me that CO2 acts like a blanket and not a blanket acts like CO2.  My whole concern is based on CO2 claims, not all atmospheric behavior. Do you have evidence that CO2 causes back radiation or slows down IR's exit to space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*water vapor not CO2 first off, and do the clouds imply back radiation exists, or the heat cannot escape through the denseness of the cloud acting like a lower atmosphere.*

The clouds don't radiate back toward the ground? Then how do they keep it warmer?

*So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter*

Hotter than without the blanket.

*Do you have evidence that CO2 causes back radiation*

CO2 absorbs and re-emits energy. Some toward the ground. Just like water vapor.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> If zero distance is the same as physical contact, then there is no conceivable reason that the rules for energy transfer via radiation would be significantly different from the rules for energy transfer via conduction and few people who actually think would suggest that back conduction is possible while many who apparently do thing suspend their thinking to allow for back radiation....delete back radiation and the AGW hoax falls flat on its face where it belongs.


There is a very conceivable reason. Energy transfer from radiation is mediated by photons. Energy transfer from conduction is mediated by kinetic energy. The physics rules governing each case are totally different.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You are still trying to impose your perspective on an entity that does not experience the universe in the same way as you...time and distance are meaningless terms when discussing an entity that experiences neither.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In special relativity all physical laws must be expressed and are valid in one frame of reference. If you want to transfer your perspective to another frame of reference, you use the Lorenz transformation to transfer the physics of the entire system under question. If you really insist on a transformation to the speed of light, you must transform the whole system to the speed of light. If you are talking about receiving light from 1 billion light years away, you have to transform the entire universe to the speed of light. That would violate almost every law of physics. 
In short you can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth (relatively still WRT an experiment).


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > God are you stupid.
> ...


it seems they forget about pressures.  I think they're called low and high pressure systems.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> Sorry. but it doesn't. Funny how willing people are to fool themselves with their instrumentation. A radio telescope was used to first record CMB. A radio telescope tunes to varying resonance frequencies of an antenna which, in turn creates an electrical signal which then gets amplified in order to create a recording over a particular frequency or spectrum.
> 
> Then that recording is matched up to a black body spectrum in accordance with Plank's law and the peak of that recording is used to determine the temperature from which a radiance can be determined, again, using Plank's law. The recorded spectrum is being translated, using Plank's law into a radiance which is measured in W/m2.
> 
> A radio spectrum is being recorded and from that a radiance is being computed.


I agree with you so far.


SSDD said:


> .no actual measurement is being made...the measurements are artifacts of mathematical models...not actual measurements of radiation.


This is where I disagree. You just said that there is a sampling of various frequencies. That is definitely a detection of EM energy from a cold source by a warmer instrument. That's exactly my point.
Then you indicate that the BB temperature is computed from a fit to Planck's law. I agree. You then conflate the BB temperature inference from the measurements with the measurements themselves.
In short, it's the measurements themselves that show radiation from a cold object to a warmer object occurs and is detected. The Planck's law data analysis occurs later off-line.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think the atmosphere is doing nothing?  Interesting.  You don't think pressure constitutes work?
> ...



So you do think the atmosphere is really doing nothing?  OK.  Laughing my ass off at you, but OK.[/QUOTE]
must never have ridden on n airplane and felt turbulence.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

"


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Something holding energy thousands of feet away makes it warmer on the ground?
> Please explain further.



You think there is no water vapor between the ground and the clouds?  Really?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A wave that can tell the temperature of every particle it could posibly touch, anywhere in the universe, all at once....that's not a smart wave?




I haven't even mentioned waves other than as a caveat at the beginning of this conversation...I said that I don't think there are any photons...that EM energy is waves which are known to cancel...

So you are making up an argument for me about waves and still trying to impose your reference point on an entity that does't care what your reference point is.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "future is a meaningless term" ≠ "a photon knows the temperature of every particle is can see, all at once"



You think photons see?  You think energy moving via conduction sees?  How do you think it knows cool from warm to know in which direction to move?

Hint...look up vibration.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As soon as you explain how conduction transfers energy, I'll point out where you're confused.



Conduction doesn't transfer energy...it is a means of transfer.  You really aren't even close on this and making up arguments for me is an ineffective defense on your part.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A radio wave isn't actually radiation?
> What is it?



Sorry guy, I made my explanation... I didn't say radio waves were being recorded...I said resonance frequencies of an antenna which then creates an electrical signal that is recorded....making up things I didn't say is just more of your inherent dishonesty.  If you can't argue against my actual statements, you are no better than crick.  Congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> *Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD*
> So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter, same as hair on top of your head if you're lucky to still have some. I doubt the blanket gets warmer and it merely restricts outbound heat.  Not similar to CO2.  So you would have to prove to me that CO2 acts like a blanket and not a blanket acts like CO2.  My whole concern is based on CO2 claims, not all atmospheric behavior. Do you have evidence that CO2 causes back radiation or slows down IR's exit to space.




Toddster thinks that if you are under a blanket you will give yourself a fever...if you stay under there long enough, eventually you will burst into flames from the backradition going back and forth and back and forth.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter*
> 
> Hotter than without the blanket.




You think he is giving himself a fever by lying under a blanket?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 absorbs and re-emits energy. Some toward the ground. Just like water vapor.



Why would the radiation from the cooler ground try to move to the warmer earth?  Energy doesn't conduct from cool to warm...zero distance...energy doesn't radiate from cool to warm either....zero distance.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> There is a very conceivable reason. Energy transfer from radiation is mediated by photons. Energy transfer from conduction is mediated by kinetic energy. The physics rules governing each case are totally different.



Because you are assuming distance between the objects in the case of radiation....from the photon's point of view it is in physical contact with its destination from its point of origin.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> In short you can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth (relatively still WRT an experiment).



So you are saying that photons experience time and space in the same way as we do...and their point of reference looks just like ours?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> This is where I disagree. You just said that there is a sampling of various frequencies.



No, I said that there was an electrical signal that was the result of a resonance frequency....not an actual measurement of CMB.  People fool themselves with instruments all the time...there was once a poster who claimed that his IR thermometer was counting photons....he had no idea that his thermometer was actually calculating temperature change of an internal thermopile and that the temperature read out was just an artifact derived from a mathematical model.  The guy was otherwise very smart, but was sure his thermometer was counting photons.

Hell, Ian thinks that an MRI was designed to work with virtual photons.  Imagine, designing a machine to work with a theoretical non existent particle.  Some people get so invested in post modern science and mathematical models that they begin to equate the output of mathematical models with observation....they can't see a difference between the two.

I ask repeatedly for some measured, observed example of back radiation at ambient temperature but none is ever forthcoming because it can't be measured.  Every example is invariably an artifact of a mathematical model and not an actual observation or measurement...much like your own.  There is no measurement of CMB...there is an electrical signal that is the result of a resonance frequency...but you, and many, believe that CMB was actually measured.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> must never have ridden on n airplane and felt turbulence.



What's funny is that he claims to be an engineer.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category.
> ...


Every substance in the atmosphere can absorb and retain energy as thermal energy. Water is exceptional in that it also has phase changes and latent heat.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > There is a very conceivable reason. Energy transfer from radiation is mediated by photons. Energy transfer from conduction is mediated by kinetic energy. The physics rules governing each case are totally different.
> ...


My main point is that the physics rules are totally different in the two cases. You didn't address that point.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > In short you can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth (relatively still WRT an experiment).
> ...


No. I'm saying that if you are going to make statements and observations from your frame of reference you cannot conflate those with phenomena observed in another frame of reference. You have to consistently stick with one frame of reference.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*A wave that can tell the temperature of every particle it could posibly touch, anywhere in the universe, all at once....that's not a smart wave?*
Now you've confused me. Ian stated yesterday I believe, that the photon moves in a straight line, how can it choose that straight line if it doesn't know the temperature of every particle at the same time?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


again, silly jc here, but collisions of pressure systems introduces tornadoes, no?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The clouds don't radiate back toward the ground? Then how do they keep it warmer?*

Heat can't get out, seems fairly simple, pressure keeps the heat in sort of like that blanket idea Ian had.

*Hotter than without the blanket.*

No, my body heat is constant, my body temperature does not go up because I am under a blanket.  

*CO2 absorbs and re-emits energy. Some toward the ground. Just like water vapor*

I disagree, and is the point we disagree on.  There is no evidence to suggest that happens.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD*
> ...


I just read this post, and funny because I just told him that. He thinks that my 98.6 temperature will be > 100 or something.  Holy crap!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


hmmmmmmmm


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> No, I said that there was an electrical signal that was the result of a resonance frequency....not an actual measurement of CMB.


Look, the detection is by a MASER. That stands for "microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" That means a microwave is amplified from a stimulation of *radiation*. That is exactly what is called a *measurement* of *radiation*. Your interpretation is like saying an amplifier to measure a microvolt isn't a measurement of a voltage; it's just LED's glowing with numbers?


SSDD said:


> Some people get so invested in post modern science and mathematical models that they begin to equate the output of mathematical models with observation....they can't see a difference between the two.


Microwave frequencies measured by a radio telescope cannot equated to a mathematical model.


SSDD said:


> There is no measurement of CMB...there is an electrical signal that is the result of a resonance frequency...but you, and many, believe that CMB was actually measured.


What is very odd is that you are precisely describing a type of measurement and immediately discounting it. High Q amplifiers are used all the time to detect frequencies. That is also what a maser is, an amplifier.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Okay. First off where is the link to the probe data that measured the temperature profile of Uranus?

There is no doubt that a diffuse cloud of gas condensing into a ball generates kinetic heat at the expense of gravitational potential. Uranus has had three billion years to come to equilibrium. What are the heat sources now? Radioactive core and sunlight. There is always a temperature gradient in a sphere that has a heat source. You are saying that a point on that gradient is warmer than our surface. So what?

If Uranus was moved farther from the Sun what would happen? It would receive less energy and the atmosphere would contract until equilibrium was restored. If there was no power sources then the contraction would continue, turning gravitational potential into kinetic heat into blackbody radiation until there was nothing but a lump of frozen gases at close to absolute zero.

Do we see signs of this process on Earth? Yes we do. The atmosphere on the sunlit side puffs up and then returns the stored potential energy at night. The poles have a thinner atmosphere than the equator. If we suddenly had no solar input the atmosphere would empty its heatsink and shrink down to a frozen layer on the surface and perhaps a sparse amount of gas that was thawed by the output of the radioactive core.

Mass and gravity have a large effect on the temperature gradient of our atmosphere. But it is already at equilibrium. There are small changes due to variations of energy input but that evens out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
* how can it choose that straight line if it doesn't know the temperature of every particle at the same time?*

A photon knows the temperature of all those particles and chooses the line it travels? 
That's one smart photon!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*That's one smart photon!*
right?

BTW, It wasn't I that originated the straight line comment.  IMO, the photon touches all of the surrounding particles at once.  No straight line, and it never moves.  And why there is no back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*Heat can't get out,*

The cloud stops the heat from getting out of the ground?  How?

*pressure keeps the heat in*

The _pressure_ of the cloud keeps the heat from getting out of the ground?

*my body temperature does not go up because I am under a blanket.* 

I didn't say your body temperature goes up,  I said it makes you feel warmer.

*There is no evidence to suggest that happens.*

No evidence that green house gasses emit energy toward the ground?
You mentioned a cold night in the desert. Were you wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*The cloud stops the heat from getting out of the ground? How?*
hahahahaahaha, I don't recall stating ground, but hey why not make stories up since you have no answer.

*The pressure of the cloud keeps the heat from getting out of the ground?*
again with the ground, I supposed the space in between doesn't matter to you, but again, you have no answer.

*I didn't say your body temperature goes up, I said it makes you feel warmer.*
ah, yeah you did.  Now you're lying.

*No evidence that green house gasses emit energy toward the ground?
You mentioned a cold night in the desert. Were you wrong?*
not CO2.  I thought I already explained my objective was based on CO2 and not the atmosphere as a whole. but it's obvious you post as a disingenuous sort.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

The human body has many heat regulatory systems and adaptive behaviors. It keeps the core temp in a narrow range or it dies.

Clothes or a blanket reduce heat loss if it is cold, reducing the power(food) requirements. Other ways are such things as shivering which burns fuel just to produce waste (but needed) heat, or the faetal position which minimizes the amount of skin exposed to colder surroundings. Blood flow restrictions to extremities is another.

Blankets don't make you warmer in the core but they do reduce the need for more uncomfortable and expensive ways of maintaining your core temp.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> The human body has many heat regulatory systems and adaptive behaviors. It keeps the core temp in a narrow range or it dies.
> 
> Clothes or a blanket reduce heat loss if it is cold, reducing the power(food) requirements. Other ways are such things as shivering which burns fuel just to produce waste (but needed) heat, or the faetal position which minimizes the amount of skin exposed to colder surroundings. Blood flow restrictions to extremities is another.
> 
> Blankets don't make you warmer in the core but they do reduce the need for more uncomfortable and expensive ways of maintaining your core temp.


agreed, that's all a blanket does.  It does not act like CO2 though.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The human body has many heat regulatory systems and adaptive behaviors. It keeps the core temp in a narrow range or it dies.
> ...




Blankets aren't only about radiation so they aren't a good example.

Your hands are sensitive to heat changes. On a very hot or cold day put your hand out flat and walk towards an outside wall with your eyes closed. Chances are that you will detect the wall before you touch it.

And why radiant heat is more comfortable.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


agreed! And the cold air outside keeps the heat indoors and why most pipes and registers are on the outside walls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
The cloud stops the heat from getting out of the ground? How?

*hahahahaahaha, I don't recall stating ground, but hey why not make stories up since you have no answer.*

So what did this mean?

"or *the heat cannot escape through the denseness of the cloud* acting like a lower atmosphere"
The heat leaves ground level and when it can't escape thru the clouds, a couple of thousand feet up, that keeps us warmer on the ground?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



During daytime, clouds can block sunlight from reaching the surface, which tends to restrict surface heating.  On the other hand, at night, clouds do trap surface heat, making the surface warmer than it would on a clear night.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> *The cloud stops the heat from getting out of the ground? How?*
> hahahahaahaha, I don't recall stating ground, but hey why not make stories up since you have no answer.
> 
> *The pressure of the cloud keeps the heat from getting out of the ground?*
> ...


 
*The pressure of the cloud keeps the heat from getting out of the ground?*

again with the ground, I supposed the space in between doesn't matter to you, but again, you have no answer.

*You weren't talking about temperature on the ground during that cold desert night?*

*I didn't say your body temperature goes up, I said it makes you feel warmer.*

ah, yeah you did. Now you're lying.

*No, I said felt warmer. You're confused.* 

*You mentioned a cold night in the desert. Were you wrong?*

not CO2. I thought I already explained my objective was based on CO2 and not the atmosphere as a whole. but it's obvious you post as a disingenuous sort

*I didn't say CO2 either, I said clouds.
So why does a cloudy night feel warmer, on average, than a clear night?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*On the other hand, at night, clouds do trap surface heat,*

Trap it how? Where?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Clouds prevent infrared heat from radiating back out to space, particularly at night.  This happens anywhere there is cloud cover at night, and is well known and understood.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 
SSDD and his buddy JC456 don't believe that clouds can emit any of that infrared back down to the ground, because that would violate the laws of physics.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *The cloud stops the heat from getting out of the ground? How?*
> ...


Well I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the groundhogs and prairie dogs coming out of the ground, but surface temperatures I'm sure it does. So were you referring to surface temperatures or the dirt in the ground?  Me I was referring to what affects my skin, and that would be surface temperatures since I don't live in holes in the ground. I enjoy the heck out of smartasses, and where I once respected your posts, you've certainly done you share of promoting yourself as one of those warmer whackos.  Nice going.

Hey, why does a cloud form at the altitude it does?  How is fog able to hang low?  let's get into your bullshit.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

It's sad when people make an uniformed choice about which side to be on, and then close their minds off to any new information except the latest extreme talking point released as propaganda.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL to which you have no evidence of.  LMFAO


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


dude, I finally agree with you on something on this topic!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> It's sad when people make an uniformed choice about which side to be on, and then close their minds off to any new information except the latest extreme talking point released as propaganda.


Curious, was this directed at me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*  Me I was referring to what affects my skin, and that would be surface temperatures since I don't live in holes in the ground.*

Great. Why does a cloudy night feel warmer than a clear night, at the surface?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Like water pressure in a hose, when I put a spray gun on the end of a hose set in the off position, why doesn't water come out?  The water can't flow because it is restricted.  So IR goes up right?  So if it can't go up it lingers until it can holding the warmth at the surface because the IR can't get out.  The IR wants to get out, it can't when clouds are there.  AGain, in a desert as soon as that sun disappears, the IR says sianara and rushes out to space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
The clouds fill up with IR and don't allow more IR to leave ground level?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It restricts it, like the hose if I squeeze the trigger of the spray gun and let some water out it all doesn't come out, it is limited and why the hose stays firm.  The clouds allow limited IR through as it releases IR upward to the atmosphere.  Eventually the temps will get a little cooler as time goes by.  It could be that it holds the heat until the next sunrise and it starts all over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*It restricts it,*

But the cloud is cooler than the ground. How can it restrict anything?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Every substance in the atmosphere can absorb and retain energy as thermal energy. Water is exceptional in that it also has phase changes and latent heat.



Sorry...not true.  But I would llike to hear your description of how a CO2 molecule which absorbs, and then immediately emits LW manages to retain some of that energy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> My main point is that the physics rules are totally different in the two cases. You didn't address that point.



The only rule is that energy doesn't move from cool areas to warm areas without some work having been done to make it happen.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> No. I'm saying that if you are going to make statements and observations from your frame of reference you cannot conflate those with phenomena observed in another frame of reference. You have to consistently stick with one frame of reference.



I'm not.  I am saying that to a photon, there is zero distance between it and any possible destination it may have and there is no more likelyhood of a photon moving from a cool area to a warm area than there is for energy to convect from a cool area to a warm area.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Look, the detection is by a MASER. That stands for "microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" That means a microwave is amplified from a stimulation of *radiation*.



You don't seem willing to grasp that CMB is detected by resonance.  It is like sophisticated radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves and generating a weak electronic signal which can then be amplified enough to detect....you don't actually hear the weak radio wave, you hear the amplified signal that resulted from the resonance frequency.

CMB was not measured, it was detected via a resonance frequency which was then amplified enough be detectable.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > My main point is that the physics rules are totally different in the two cases. You didn't address that point.
> ...



Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> The human body has many heat regulatory systems and adaptive behaviors. It keeps the core temp in a narrow range or it dies.
> 
> Clothes or a blanket reduce heat loss if it is cold, reducing the power(food) requirements. Other ways are such things as shivering which burns fuel just to produce waste (but needed) heat, or the faetal position which minimizes the amount of skin exposed to colder surroundings. Blood flow restrictions to extremities is another.
> 
> Blankets don't make you warmer in the core but they do reduce the need for more uncomfortable and expensive ways of maintaining your core temp.



Toddster knows damned well that equating a blanket to any sort of radiative transfer is a false analogy....and yet, he is willing to use it in an effort to trick someone...how is he any different from rocks or crick...spewing misinformation that they know is false in the hope of tricking someone into believing them?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > My main point is that the physics rules are totally different in the two cases. You didn't address that point.
> ...


The rules I'm referring to are (1) thermal transfer is by a radiant process. (2) Conduction is a process via kinetic energy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD and his buddy JC456 don't believe that clouds can emit any of that infrared back down to the ground, because that would violate the laws of physics.



they don't...unless of course the ground is cooler than the cloud.  You have become as dishonest as old rocks...hope you are proud of yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> It's sad when people make an uniformed choice about which side to be on, and then close their minds off to any new information except the latest extreme talking point released as propaganda.



Yeah, it is sad Ian, but I am sure that when the hoax finally crashes, and some actual science starts being done, you will be able to adapt to the fact that you have been wrong all this time...rocks, crick, et al may just self destruct.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...





Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



How would energy moving zero distance between bodies know whether it was conducting or radiating?  Does it say oh, i am radiating so now I can go to a warmer object than myself now?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Every substance in the atmosphere can absorb and retain energy as thermal energy. Water is exceptional in that it also has phase changes and latent heat.
> ...


All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.



So you admit that there is no such thing as back radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.



It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place.  It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No. I'm saying that if you are going to make statements and observations from your frame of reference you cannot conflate those with phenomena observed in another frame of reference. You have to consistently stick with one frame of reference.
> ...


You can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Are you saying that photons don't move at the speed of light on earth?


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Do you now believe that all of existence has zero size?

Such a fucking troll!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> .you don't actually hear the weak radio wave, you hear the amplified signal that resulted from the resonance frequency.


Exactly. That is what amplifiers are for. My point is that the *cold CMB must strike the warmer MASER* for there to be an amplification in the first place. That illustrates that energy from a cold source (CMB) can hit a warmer source (MASER).

Since you are having trouble with that concept. Consider this:
*Radiation from a cold source at 2.725 deg K must hit the much warmer parabolic dish of the telescope at 15 deg C*. 

That is a clear example of thermal radiation from a colder source striking a warmer object. That is a contradiction of your understanding that energy cannot go from a cold source to a hotter source.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Are you saying that photons don't move at the speed of light on earth?


No. Of course not. I'm sorry you can't understand it. I'm trying to keep it simple.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.
> ...



Straw man.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Every substance in the atmosphere can absorb and retain energy as thermal energy. Water is exceptional in that it also has phase changes and latent heat.
> ...





SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It's sad when people make an uniformed choice about which side to be on, and then close their minds off to any new information except the latest extreme talking point released as propaganda.
> ...



Thanks, I'll take as a vote of confidence in my belief in science moving towards the truth.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> How would energy moving zero distance between bodies know whether it was conducting or radiating? Does it say oh, i am radiating so now I can go to a warmer object than myself now?


That statement makes no physical sense. Energy doesn't "*know*" or "*say*" anything! You have to be a lot more scientifically precise. You have to explicitly define the concept you are talking about and not switch it midstream.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.
> ...




Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



While that may be true, the reverse is also true.  But thanks for admitting that ghgs affect the radiation of IR radiation into space.  Most deniers refuse to accept that fact.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




What do YOU believe happens to the IR? Be specific.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth.


That's right; it scatters the LWIR in a random direction. It still maintains ambient temperature. I don't know what you mean by a hole.


SSDD said:


> ...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place.



What are you talking about??? IR doesn't move by convection nor conduction; only matter can move that way!

Furthermore if the GHGs disappeared, much of the LWIR would speed out to space leaving the oceans all ice. Remember the earth is absorbing around 160 Watts per meter squared and radiating almost 400 Watts per m^2. A new equilibrium would be reached and result in the earth radiating only in the neighborhood of 160 W per m^2. If you apply the S-B law, you would see that the earth would be verrrry cold.


SSDD said:


> It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.


To you it's silly because you don't understand the physics behind radiation phenomena.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?


That's what I said to SSDD above. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? It seems that if all the oceans turned to ice, even more SWIR would be reflected out.There may be other forcings that would change that but I haven't thought of any. However I definitely disagree with him that the earth would be warmer.
Opps. Dumb comment. See below.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

Oops, I have to rethink the above reply. Water is a GHG. If it disappeared there would be no ice! If CH4, and CO2, etc disappeared, but water was left, I would think the world would be colder but certainly not all ice. Besides O3 would still exist at the TOA. Intuition on that mental exercise may easily fail.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?
> ...



You're a newbie here. I say all of this stuff every six months or so. And in new variations on the theme. It seldom sinks in to those who didn't already know it, and the few that seem to change their minds usually backslide soon after.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> You're a newbie here. I say all of this stuff every six months or so. And in new variations on the theme. It seldom sinks in to those who didn't already know it, and the few that seem to change their minds usually backslide soon after.


Are you saying it sunk in to me? If so, do I take that as a complement? If so, Thank you. There seems to be a lot of conditionals in my reply.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You're a newbie here. I say all of this stuff every six months or so. And in new variations on the theme. It seldom sinks in to those who didn't already know it, and the few that seem to change their minds usually backslide soon after.
> ...




Nope, I think you came to the table with most of the pieces. 

It's hard to put it down straight the first few times but it is worth the effort to try. You may not convince anyone else but you will be better for it. I'm glad to have you here.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Exactly. That is what amplifiers are for. My point is that the *cold CMB must strike the warmer MASER* for there to be an amplification in the first place. That illustrates that energy from a cold source (CMB) can hit a warmer source (MASER).



Not sure why you are having a hard time with this...the resonance frequency is not CMB...CMB is not being captured by the radio telescope...a weak resonance frequency is being captured and interpolated into CMB which could not be captured by the radio telescope.

*


Wuwei said:



			Radiation from a cold source at 2.725 deg K must hit the much warmer parabolic dish of the telescope at 15 deg C
		
Click to expand...

*


Wuwei said:


> .



I am not having trouble with this...I understand that the 2.75K radiation is not hitting the dish....a resonance signal is hitting the dish and being amplified into a signal that can then be interpolated into the 2.75K signal.



Wuwei said:


> That is a clear example of thermal radiation from a colder source striking a warmer object. That is a contradiction of your understanding that energy cannot go from a cold source to a hotter source.



It is a clear example of getting a signal that can not be received by the telescope...a resonance signal that can be picked up being amplified and vi a mathematical model interpreted into the signal (artificially) that is to weak to be actually received.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If work is being done to move energy from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth, then there is no back radiation.  Which is it?  Back radiation, or energy being moved via work produced via pressure in the atmosphere?  If it is work being done via atmospheric pressure, where does that leave the greenhouse hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> Thanks, I'll take as a vote of confidence in my belief in science moving towards the truth.



It will move more quickly once the AGW hoax is dead....and I am sure that you will adapt to life without a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> That statement makes no physical sense. Energy doesn't "*know*" or "*say*" anything! You have to be a lot more scientifically precise. You have to explicitly define the concept you are talking about and not switch it midstream.



Of course it doesn't....I was just pretending to be toddster and ian et al for a minute....saying stupid stuff like smart energy, and smart waves, and smart photons didn't make me feel any better about myself....wonder why they do it.  Energy moves in the only direction it has available to it...just like a dropped stone, or an electron down a copper wire.  It doesn't move up hill...more entropy always...no back radiation.  The only way energy goes to a state of less entropy is if work is done to make it happen.

Back conduction doesn't happen...energy can't move from a cool body to a warm body that is in physical contact with it....acknowledging that there is zero distance (from the photon's point of view) and  a body that is warmer than the body it originated from, why would someone argue that the energy that the photon represents attempt to move up hill to a state of less entropy?  Energy only goes where it can....movement to a warmer body is a place it can't go...why even attempt whether you are energy in the form of a photon or energy conducting from one place to another?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Via radiation?  How would it radiate if there were no radiative gasses to facilitate the movement?  Radiation is the smallest part of energy transport from the surface to the upper atmosphere...GHG's are what facilitate that small percentage of the total movement of heat out into space...take away the GHG's and you are left with nothing but conduction and convection.


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2015)

Where do you get the idea that the primary CMB frequency is not being detected?

Where also do you get the idea that its harmonics would have any warmer a source than the primary?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> What are you talking about??? IR doesn't move by convection nor conduction; only matter can move that way!



My error...I should have just said energy.  If we didn't have radiative gasses in the atmosphere, we would be dependent entirely on conduction and convection to move energy into the upper atmosphere...and the earth would be a warmer place as a result.



Wuwei said:


> To you it's silly because you don't understand the physics behind radiation phenomena.



If you believe that the cooler atmosphere can radiate energy to the warmer surface of the earth and cause warming, I am afraid that it is you who is being silly.


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2015)

Do you actually believe that "radiative gasses" are the only sorts of matter that emit IR?

Did Stefan and Boltzmann tell us at some point that their work only applies to radiative gasses?

You cannot deny you are a fooking troll.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Crick and others have explained this to you and others half a dozen times, bubba.  That you willfully ignore the explanation, that's on you.  Get over it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. That is what amplifiers are for. My point is that the *cold CMB must strike the warmer MASER* for there to be an amplification in the first place. That illustrates that energy from a cold source (CMB) can hit a warmer source (MASER).
> ...


 

*It is a clear example of getting a signal that can not be received by the telescope...a resonance signal that can be picked up*

I'm not clear on what you're claiming here.
What's the difference between the real signal received by the dish, actual radiation emitted by matter at about 2.75K and this resonance signal, something you made up to support your silly claims?
How does this radiation cause this resonance? Where does your magical transition occur?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


hahahahahahahahahahaha I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either.  what's your point?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


hahahahahaahhaa bothers the bajesus out of you?  funny shit s0n.  Don't disturb the pedals on that flower now.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


BTW, how fast does it absorb? is it like a paper towel? Bounty comes to mind, or Charmin soft on my ass.  I have a link btw, a missing link and you resemble that missing link.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


you wouldn't know what clear is, foggy is more in line with you.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


crick's a dk, damn there's that Dr. Seuss experience again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
You have no proof of your so called restriction.
You're making it up.
That's my point.

* I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either.* 

You have, you admitted it upthread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
Morning drinker.....aren't you?


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Given fossil fuels run out, of course we need to spend money on green energy. You'd have to be 'effin stupid to think otherwise.
> 
> That GISS chart might need to expand to 3 digits soon.


you morons still pushing peak oil as well? ROFL


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


hmmm, funny thing, you have no proof of yours.  So coin flip?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yeah, I enjoy my maxwell house every morning.  Thanks!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
You admitted that cloud cover keeps it warmer.
It's funny when your ignorance of the science has you disagreeing with yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
Is that what you call your booze? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It's what I call my source for coffee in the morning, yep!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


funny, not sure what your point is.  We all know that at night with no sun, a clear night is colder than a cloudy night.  I think it's obvious the cloud presence is the reason for the warmer air.  How you feel that happens I couldn't care a less.  It isn't my objective on a daily visit to the forum.  What is my objective is telling others about the lies posted daily by your type.  Back radiation.  only in your dreams s0n. And is something you can't prove.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2015)

Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.


when will you educate yourself rather than looking for attention.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.


ROFL yeah cause we all know the sun is wait...ROFL


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> when will you educate yourself rather than looking for attention.



We still can and do directly measure backradiation. Your idiot claim is just flat out wrong. Crying at me won't change that.

Now, you don't have to admit you were wrong. You'll just be considered by everyone to be a cowardly kook liar unless you do. If that's your choice, so be it. Me, when I'm wrong, I just say so, but that's that an honesty thing, so you wouldn't understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


* 
funny, not sure what your point is. We all know that at night with no sun, a clear night is colder than a cloudy night.*

That's the back radiation making SSDD look silly.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> ROFL yeah cause we all know the sun is wait...ROFL



You're just babbling incomprehensible sentence fragments now.

Which means you're making more sense than usual.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's the back radiation making SSDD look silly.



Again, on a cloudy night, do you think the only water vapor holding energy is at the level of the clouds?  You don't think a cloudy night is more humid than a clear night?  You don't think the air close to the ground is more moist on a cloudy night than a clear night?  Do you think the water in clouds has some property that humidity close to the ground doesn't?

Again, you know these things but are deliberately attempting to trick someone knowing that you are omitting key facts...more like old rocks all the time.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.
> ...



She is so desperate for attention that she will do whatever is required to get it....no matter the humiliation involved.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Not sure why you are having a hard time with this...the resonance frequency is not CMB...CMB is not being captured by the radio telescope...a weak resonance frequency is being captured and interpolated into CMB which could not be captured by the radio telescope.



That's wrong. The entire CMB BB energy is hitting the maser. The maser amplifies one narrow band of one of the BB radiation frequencies at a time. You are still confusing the CMB *input* to the maser output.



SSDD said:


> I am not having trouble with this...I understand that the 2.75K radiation is not hitting the dish....a resonance signal is hitting the dish and being amplified into a signal that can then be interpolated into the 2.75K signal.



That is totally wrong! When the CMB hits the dish how can it possibly be a "resonance frequency" when it hasn't even reflected to the maser yet! All frequencies hit the dish. The maser amplifies just one of them after the fact. You have cause and effect turned around.



SSDD said:


> It is a clear example of getting a signal that can not be received by the telescope...a resonance signal that can be picked up being amplified and vi a mathematical model interpreted into the signal (artificially) that is to weak to be actually received.


You have an amazing incapability for understanding the simplest things. Let me try to make it simpler.

A radio telescope antenna picks up a *band of wavelengths*. (BB spectrum) and transfers it to a *tuned amplifier* whose tuning can be changed to select a very  *small segment* of wavelengths (one specific BB sample).

An FM radio antenna picks up a* band of wavelengths* (several stations), transfers it to a *tuned amplifier* whose tuning can be changed to select a very  *small segment* of wavelengths (one station).

The concepts are exactly the same, albeit with different technologies. It can't be made simpler than that.

Any electrical engineer will tell you that an FM antenna sticking out of your car receives a wide band of EM waves, and not a “resonance frequency”.

You are continually coming up with non-scientific terms or concepts that you don't clearly define. If you disagree, you will have to clearly define exactly what is the “resonance frequency” the CMB is supposedly sending and how it differs from black body radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's the back radiation making SSDD look silly.
> ...


 
*Again, on a cloudy night, do you think the only water vapor holding energy is at the level of the clouds?*

If you think I said that anywhere, show me.

*Do you think the water in clouds has some property that humidity close to the ground doesn't?*

You think the humidity close to the ground doesn't also absorb and re-emit IR? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why you are having a hard time with this...the resonance frequency is not CMB...CMB is not being captured by the radio telescope...a weak resonance frequency is being captured and interpolated into CMB which could not be captured by the radio telescope.
> ...


 
*You are continually coming up with non-scientific terms or concepts that you don't clearly define.*

His epicycles take a lot of work.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That statement makes no physical sense. Energy doesn't "*know*" or "*say*" anything! You have to be a lot more scientifically precise. You have to explicitly define the concept you are talking about and not switch it midstream.
> ...


You are getting distracted from the original question: You were saying photon "contact" and  conduction "contact" were related in some way you didn't clearly spell out, and I disagreed. They are two different concepts in physics. Why and how can you relate them?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yeah it's like talking to a child that makes stuff up as you go along.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


 
Radiation from cold space can't hit the warm antenna, that would violate the 2nd Law.
It magically resonates with the antenna and only "looks like" CMB.
Just silly.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Radiation from cold space can't hit the warm antenna, that would violate the 2nd Law.
> It magically resonates with the antenna and only "looks like" CMB.
> Just silly.


SSDD is going to fight that tooth and nail. He has a maniacal obsession against the fact that EM radiation freely goes anywhere no matter the temperatures. If there is any type of counter-example the only recourse for him is to make stuff up.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




????  That statement makes no sense. If there were no GHGs to create the bottleneck at the surface boundary then most of the surface IR would simply fly away to space, unimpeded, at the spped of light. 

The surface at 15C radiates 400w. The solar input now is 160w, even if we consider all the albedo due to clouds it would still only rise to less than 250w. The 150w surplus of radiation leaving would cool the surface PDQ don't you think?

You can't have it both ways. Without GHGs forcing energy into alternate pathways you have no energy powering convection and little conduction either.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation from cold space can't hit the warm antenna, that would violate the 2nd Law.
> ...




Yup. He thinks that because you have to do work to make the actual measurements then the thing being measured doesn't exist. Or something like that. But it makes sense to him in his bizarro land universe.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> ???? That statement makes no sense. If there were no GHGs to create the bottleneck at the surface boundary then most of the surface IR would simply fly away to space, unimpeded, at the spped of light.
> 
> The surface at 15C radiates 400w. The solar input now is 160w, even if we consider all the albedo due to clouds it would still only rise to less than 250w. The 150w surplus of radiation leaving would cool the surface PDQ don't you think?
> 
> You can't have it both ways. Without GHGs forcing energy into alternate pathways you have no energy powering convection and little conduction either.


Excellent point!  I checked S-B law and at 15C the surface of the earth does radiate 400 W/m^2. No possible mechanism can counter all that radiation if there is no back scatter.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2015)

Backradiation demonstrated a different way, using myself as an example.

The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's say the surface area radiating to the world is 1.5 m^2. You can set it at a little more or less, it won't matter for purposes of this example.

Body temperature is 37C, or 310K.

IR power radiated out of me = (surface area) * (S-B constant) * (T^4)

If you run the numbers, that comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 16,000 Calories.

If backradiation didn't exist, all of that 16,000 Calories would have to fueled by the food I ate. Even more than that, since heat is also conducting away from me, but we'll just forget about conduction for this example. So according to SSDD, we all must be eating that much.

However, backradiation does exist. The environment, almost all of which is cooler than 37C, is constantly radiating into me. I absorb that radiation and then radiate it back out. I'm absorbing 14,000 Calories of backradiation each day, so that I only have to eat 2,000 Calories to make up the balance.

Another example ...

Inside at 68F, you're comfortable.

Outside at 68F, in the shade (so no direct solar radiation), you'll start getting chilly.

Why? Inside, the walls and ceiling are radiating at 68F. Outside, half of your radiating environment is a colder sky. You're getting less backradiation.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Backradiation demonstrated a different way, using myself as an example.
> 
> The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.
> 
> ...


So basically you are saying warmer is better.  Ok, glad we can stop talking about warming as a bad thing now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Backradiation demonstrated a different way, using myself as an example.
> 
> The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.
> 
> ...


 
_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

Physicist Offers 10 000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change Page 30 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

SSDD will now show that back in 1963, they didn't understand the 2nd Law.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

I hate taking the side of SSDD, but this is what he would reply to your inane human body example: Mamooth and Todster, you retards are totally wrong. The 2nd law says that colder air outside can't radiate to your warmer body. Period. What actually happens is that the outside environment inhibits your body from radiating anything but 100 Watts.  QED.

Furthermore the reason your body behaves that way is due to an anti-phlogiston vortex of dark matter located in your sweat glands.

On a lighter note, that's why I thought it was so important to show the CMB example. It shows explicitly a case of super-cold radiation hitting a hotter antenna in a measurable, repeatable experiment.

That one counterexample illustrates that his version of the second law cannot be,
"*Energy* cannot flow from cold to hot",
but must be
"*Thermal energy* cannot flow from cold to hot.

That wording allows backscatter, and also preserves the original intent of the second law. But I expect you already know that. So this post is mostly for other's that may have been lost or bored by the interminable back and forth arguments and digressions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> I hate taking the side of SSDD, but this is what he would reply to your inane human body example: Mamooth and Todster, you retards are totally wrong. The 2nd law says that colder air outside can't radiate to your warmer body. Period. What actually happens is that the outside environment inhibits your body from radiating anything but 100 Watts.  QED.
> 
> Furthermore the reason your body behaves that way is due to an anti-phlogiston vortex of dark matter located in your sweat glands.
> 
> ...


* 
 What actually happens is that the outside environment inhibits your body from radiating anything but 100 Watts. QED.*

His magic theory has warmer bodies slowing their emission, as they reach equilibrium, without ever knowing the temp of their target, because, after all, the colder target can't radiate back.
Maybe the photon (or wave, he doesn't believe in photons) sends info back, as it hits? 
It's all very complicated.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Backradiation demonstrated a different way, using myself as an example.
> ...


So, let's take this analogy and,  lets say in the room the temperature is 68 F, what is the temperature of the wall absorbing, reflecting and re-emmiting the radiated waves?  So when you point the infrared meter at it, what will it read?  And if the wall is emitting IR back into the room, does the room get warmer?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What actually happens is that the outside environment inhibits your body from radiating anything but 100 Watts. QED.*
> 
> His magic theory has warmer bodies slowing their emission, as they reach equilibrium, without ever knowing the temp of their target, because, after all, the colder target can't radiate back.
> Maybe the photon (or wave, he doesn't believe in photons) sends info back, as it hits?
> It's all very complicated.


I have not seen his answer to that. I don't think I want to. But as far as photons he already had a theory of photons and zero distance and time. That's odd since he does not believe in photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 
*So, let's take this analogy and, lets say in the room the temperature is 68 F,*

Air temp, inside wall temp, outside wall temp?

*So when you point the infrared meter at it, what will it read?*

If the wall temp is 68 F, it'll read 68 F.

*And if the wall is emitting IR back into the room, does the room get warmer?*

Is there an energy source in the room? What's its temp?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What actually happens is that the outside environment inhibits your body from radiating anything but 100 Watts. QED.*
> ...


 
It must work with waves as well and it is definitely odd.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> So, let's take this analogy and, lets say in the room the temperature is 68 F, what is the temperature of the wall absorbing, reflecting and re-emmiting the radiated waves? So when you point the infrared meter at it, what will it read? And if the wall is emitting IR back into the room, does the room get warmer?


Objects at the same temperature radiate equal amounts to each other. The net flow of energy is zero.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


thermometer in the room reads 68.

Does the reflected IR off the wall warm the room?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's take this analogy and, lets say in the room the temperature is 68 F, what is the temperature of the wall absorbing, reflecting and re-emmiting the radiated waves? So when you point the infrared meter at it, what will it read? And if the wall is emitting IR back into the room, does the room get warmer?
> ...


 
I know. He has said that they simply stop radiating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
No energy source in the room, no energy loss thru the outside walls, sounds like equilibrium.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know. He has said that they simply stop radiating


Sorry. I was addressing that to JC.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


so they radiate to infinity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know. He has said that they simply stop radiating
> ...


 
I know. Just wanted to give you more of the "theory of SSDD".


----------



## chikenwing (Apr 23, 2015)

Everything was covered with snow this AM 4/23/15 Tioga county NY coldest Feb on record,set cold record after cold record.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's take this analogy and, lets say in the room the temperature is 68 F, what is the temperature of the wall absorbing, reflecting and re-emmiting the radiated waves? So when you point the infrared meter at it, what will it read? And if the wall is emitting IR back into the room, does the room get warmer?
> ...


what if the wall were cooler than the ambient 68 F inside the room?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


 
Bodies over 0K radiate. All the time. It's how we can tell their temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so they radiate to infinity?


I don't think we can second guess what SSDD is thinking. You would have to ask him.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so they radiate to infinity?
> ...


I was asking todd I think.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what does that IR off the wall do though? What is it's purpose?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I was asking todd I think.


OK. Todd would have a different answer than SSDD. (the right answer)


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I was asking todd I think.
> ...


I'm just looking for an answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*what does that IR off the wall do though?*

It moves thru the room. Absorbed by the air, an object in the room or another wall.

*What is it's purpose?*

IR has no purpose. No intelligence. It doesn't "see" the objects in the room.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It moves thru the room. Absorbed by the air, an object in the room or another wall.

*If it's absorbed by the air, then why doesn't it get hotter?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
The IR that hit the wall is from the air. The IR that hits the air is from the wall.
No new energy source, the temp of everything stays the same.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why would the emitted IR be absorbed by the air if they are the same temperature?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
*why would the emitted IR be absorbed by the air if they are the same temperature?*

Matter absorbs energy that hits it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why you are having a hard time with this...the resonance frequency is not CMB...CMB is not being captured by the radio telescope...a weak resonance frequency is being captured and interpolated into CMB which could not be captured by the radio telescope.
> ...


ok, finally ready to discuss.  Had to think about this one a while.  I was thinking of radar/ speed guns and how doppler works to tell the speed of an object.  So, does an object reflect anything that would allow a radar gun to detect it's speed, or does the object reflect back a wave at a different frequency? According to wikipedia, at a different frequency and that reflected wave form is converted to a miles per hour reading.  

So, how does a infrared meter work, wouldn't it work in a similar manner looking for a wave form back and convert to a temperature?  IMO, the only way the IR gun can read is on a returned signal, so then you'd be telling me that emitted IR would have mass to cause a bounce back.  I don't accept that.  The wave from the meter's transmitter has to bounce off a target object and that returned wave is calculated in order to produce a temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why wouldn't the emitted matter absorb?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
All matter absorbs. All matter, above 0K, emits.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so it emits sucks up more emits more sucks up more emits more, to infinite then?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I agree with your understanding of the radar/speed gun. It is an active device. It sends and receives a signal.

An infrared meter does not work the same way. It is a passive device. It only receives signals and amplifies them so that they are large enough to be used; very similar to an FM radio. The bouncing that I was referring to is incoming cosmic radiation hitting a curved dish that focuses the incoming waves on a detector. That is very similar to a parabolic dish used to pick up TV shows from a satellite.




Incoming waves hit the dish and are focused onto the detector sticking out. Radiation does not need mass to reflect.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so if I had a infrared meter and pointed it at the wall to take a reading, would the wall reflect the infrared wave back or does the IR matter that was emitted reflect it back?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
Yup.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
AFAIK, the meter detects IR emitted by the wall you point it at.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


So I have a problem with that answer.  how does it know what you want to know the heat of if you don't highlight it somehow?  

From a meter description sheet I looked up:

"The pyrometer can be used in adverse conditions. It has a backlit LCD. The device has a visible laser to quickly and accurately target the area to be measured. This allows for measurements to be taken at certain distances if the object being measured it hot or difficult to access. The emissivity can be adjusted between 0.1 and 1, and covers 90% of possible measurements taken. 
Please note that when measuring an object, the surface area being measured must be bigger than the surface area of the visible laser pointer. "


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why wouldn't it see the IR from the air?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


hmmm, that seems irrational.  each time the emitted IR wave would be reduced correct? Wouldn't it eventually be so small it vanishes?


----------



## Aktas (Apr 23, 2015)

Chile's vulcane from the other side..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> why wouldn't it see the IR from the air?



It does see it.

However, the pyrometer works over short distances. There's not much of a mass of air in that short space, so not much IR radiating from that air.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 23, 2015)

I use an IR gun, what we call it, it is a handheld device you hold like a gun, in looking for hydraulics that are bypassing. The IR comes from the hydraulic hoses or parts, not from any reflection. The air is far less dense, so radiates a very minor amount of heat. The device ignores the minor background intensity. Whether reading hot or cold temperatures. As has been stated, everything gives off some IR, and everything is being impacted by the same radiation. And everything seeks equilibrium.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
It would.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
Why would it be reduced?


----------

