# Let`s have a vote on back radiation



## polarbear (Nov 28, 2012)

Without Roy Spencer`s "back radiation" there is no positive feed back from a cooler body to a hotter one and any "global warming" can`t come from 380 ppm CO2. Since Roy has been debunked by a whole lot of engineers he avoids debating this perpetual motion machine principle and the only way we could debate him since then is like Clint Eastwood debated Obama.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhCfjh_IlzI"]Dirty Harry debates Obama chair (anonymous style) - YouTube[/ame]
But I`m not a Hollywood movie actor so instead I`ll let Roy speak here through his quotes:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


> Even my oldest daughter, a realtor who has an aversion to things scientific, got the right answer when I used this example on her.


If Clint Eastwood were an engineer he would have said:


> Dr. Spencer:
> Your thought experiment was interesting. A more accurate title would be &#8220;Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can APPEAR To Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.&#8221; The cooler bar did not actually make the heated bar warmer. You have shown the value of insulation. You have also shown the value of how semantics plays in scientific discussion. I&#8217;m sure that those of the Catastrophic AGW faith are making great use of your blog&#8217;s title. From what I have read, one of the reasons the AGW theory fails is because it requires CO2 to be a super-insulator.


To which Roy replied:


> I purposely phrased the title in a somewhat ambiguous manner because those how say the opposite (who disagree with me) do the same thing.


and adds:


> Examples are All Around Us
> 
> Examples of objects with lower temperatures causing objects with higher temperatures to become even higher still are all around us.
> 
> For instance, in terms of these most basic heating and cooling concepts (energy gain and energy loss), the same thing happens when you put a blanket over yourself when it is cold. The blanket stays cooler than your skin, but it nevertheless makes your skin warmer than if the cooler blanket was not there. Even though the direction of flow of heat never changes (it is always from warmer to cooler objects), a cooler object can still make a warm object even hotter.


Even Clint Eastwood would have noticed that a insulating blanket is not the same as what Roy is trying to pass off as "back radiation" and would have grilled Roy on that point:


> Roy, if all you are doing is demonstrating that thermal insulation will raise the temperature of a heated object
> But Roy, you are making a different claim. You are postulating something called &#8220;radiative-insulation&#8221;, and suggesting that it will act like thermal insulation. That is much more problematical


And if Clint Eastwood would be an engineer he would have pointed out a few facts to Roy Spencer:


> photons are NOT heat, not even IR photons.
> I suspect this corruption of basic physics is due to ulterior motives. In your case, Roy, your work on cloud feedbacks depends on there being a greenhouse effect due to back/downdwelling IR. Take this away and much of your research and that of others becomes worthless


Roy replied:


> OK, then if the IR photonic detector measures one intensity of &#8220;EM waves&#8221; from an object colder than itself, and a different intensity from the object when at a different temperature, would that be evidence that colder objects emit IR radiation toward warmer objects?
> If not, why not?
> I&#8217;ve discussed this issue with someone I work with, a physicist, and he pointed out there are photonic IR detectors. I see from internet searches that these can operate at room temperature.
> 
> If such photonic detectors can measure IR photons coming from a cold surface, would you consider that as evidence that IR radiation is indeed emitted by a colder object in the direction of a warmer object?


Clint Eastwood would have said:


> If the greenhouse effect were real (and think about this please Dr Spencer!) then the ice would warm the vodka and the wamer vodka could cool the ice.


And if there were a few house wives and and a few cooks in the audience who have a solar oven / fridge they would have bust out laughing...:

Let me google that for you

Lets pick a couple .:

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker


> by Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University
> How to Use the Solar Funnel as a Refrigerator/Cooler
> the BYU Solar Funnel Cooker can be used - at night - as a refrigerator. Here is how this is done.
> 
> ...


Or this one :
http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/SpaceFridge.pdf



> A solar oven is designed to capture solar energy to heat something to a higher temperature than the surrounding air. You put an object in a mirrored box with a glass lid. Radiation comes in, reflects, and strikes the object in the box, warming it up. Basically, the object &#8220;sees&#8221; more light from the sun than it otherwise would.
> But suppose we turned this idea around. If you put an object in the solar oven but replace the top with something that transmits infrared.
> Then we put the box out at night and point it at open sky.
> What happens? It makes a refrigerator&#8212;a &#8220;space refrigerator.&#8221; The object cools to a lower temperature than the surrounding air!


Oh what was that You said before Roy?..:
I&#8217;ve discussed this issue with someone I work with, a physicist, and he  pointed out there are photonic IR detectors. I see from internet  searches that these can operate at room temperature.

If such photonic detectors can measure IR photons coming from a cold  surface, would you consider that as evidence that IR radiation is indeed  emitted by a colder object in the direction of a warmer object?
yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still ?
Even your  oldest daughter, a realtor who has an aversion to things scientific, got the right answer when You used this example on her ?

So lets vote on Roy Spencer`s "back radiation" where a cold object can make a warm object even warmer global warming back radiation miracle photons that defy all laws of thermodynamics.

Would You A.) rather sit in the desert sun under a "back radiation" sun umbrella or B.) do You prefer to "cool off" out in the open with Roy Spencer ?

And before anybody comes in here and switches the subject ( again) to the "melting glaciers" trying to prove that this crap is science..I don`t care which..don`t shoot your mouth off like Roy and his stupid "Yes Virginina" thought(less) experiment...and before You accuse us that our fossil CO2 can be linked  to a "record low" glacier thickness on Greenland  without first explaining *where all the heat came from that evaporated  all that water somewhere else so it could  fall as snow and freeze  to mile thick glaciers in Greenland .
*If You do I`ll shoot You like fish in a barrel or worse.
Good night, I`m done and the "Yes Virginia" skeptic  fridge I tried out...using a 6 inch bushnell reflector telescope wrapped with fiberglass insulation, pointed out the *closed* (!!) bedroom window froze a styro-foam cup full of water solid !


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2012)

I vote for CO2 being able to absorb and scatter certain frequencies of outbound radiation from the surface. because roughly half of this scattered radiation is directed back at the surface instead of escaping directly into space that means the efficiency of cooling by IR radiation has been reduced.

because the sun keeps adding the same amount of energy, if you reduce the outgoing energy there is a small temporary imbalance leading to the change of temperature or change of method for heat loss at different points of the pathway from input to output. 

I think the change in temperature is small, and mitigated by other heat transport systems that quickly move to re-establish equilibrium of this open system.

while I must admit I did not read all of your lonnnnng and rambling post, I am interested as to why you and the engineer call the scattering of IR a perpetual motion machine. please describe the mechanism because I am sure we can easily find where your thinking has gone wrong by some simple error like Zeno's paradox.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2012)

Correct on the back radiation, Ian, wrong on the same energy. The total TSI has been down a bit for a while. But the warming has continued.


----------



## editec (Nov 28, 2012)

We're going to _vote_ on the laws of thermodynamics?


Okay, my vote is that we keep them exactly as they are now.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2012)

OK. I use a UV lamp for prospecting and mineral identification. A crystal of scheelite floureces brilliant star blue in shortwave UV. It does not matter whether the lamp is warm and the crystal is cold, or the lamp is cold and the crystal is warm. That is because the cause of the flourescence is at the atomic level, a quantum effect. The same for the backscatter radiation of CO2 and infrared. No matter what the temperature of the CO2 molecule, if it recieves absorbs a photon, then emits one or more photons, multiple lower energy photons, the temperature of whatever those photons hits is as irrelevant as the temperature of the emittling atom or molecule. If absorbed and not relected, it will deliver it's energy to whatever it hits. Hot, cold, or somewhere inbetween.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> I vote for CO2 being able to absorb and scatter certain frequencies of outbound radiation from the surface. because roughly half of this scattered radiation is directed back at the surface instead of escaping directly into space that means the efficiency of cooling by IR radiation has been reduced.
> 
> because the sun keeps adding the same amount of energy, if you reduce the outgoing energy there is a small temporary imbalance leading to the change of temperature or change of method for heat loss at different points of the pathway from input to output.



So where is the hotspot and where is the inevetable warming as CO2 has steadily increased?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2012)

May as well vote for pigs flying as a transfer of energy from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface of the earth.  One is just as likely as the other.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The same for the backscatter radiation of CO2 and infrared. No matter what the temperature of the CO2 molecule, if it recieves absorbs a photon, then emits one or more photons, multiple lower energy photons, the temperature of whatever those photons hits is as irrelevant as the temperature of the emittling atom or molecule. If absorbed and not relected, it will deliver it's energy to whatever it hits. Hot, cold, or somewhere inbetween.



Can you prove that?  Assumptions, even assumptions by physicists are just that and shouldn't be confused with observed fact.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2012)

So according to the kooks, the last century of physics is all completely wrong.

Why? Because their political cult has declared it must be so. And they're the only one's who see it. All those egghead scientists are just soooooo stupid.

Good luck with that.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2012)

mamooth said:


> So according to the kooks, the last century of physics is all completely wrong.
> 
> Why? Because their political cult has declared it must be so. And they're the only one's who see it. All those egghead scientists are just soooooo stupid.
> 
> Good luck with that.



The last 40 years or so of atmospheric "physics" is wrong.  Atmospheric physics ie climate science has deviated from classical physics.  You won't find backradiation being taught in classical physics.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I vote for CO2 being able to absorb and scatter certain frequencies of outbound radiation from the surface. because roughly half of this scattered radiation is directed back at the surface instead of escaping directly into space that means the efficiency of cooling by IR radiation has been reduced.
> ...



Why am I accountable for a faulty computer model prediction? When did I say there was s hotspot?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> Why am I accountable for a faulty computer model prediction? When did I say there was s hotspot?



A hotspot, or at least a warm spot would be the inevetable result of your idea of slowing heat's escape from the atmosphere.

How about the fact that you can only measure downdwelling radiation if you cool the instrument to a temperature far below the ambient?  All of those so called measurements of downdwelling radiation have been made with instruments cooled with liquid nitrogen.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 28, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Without Roy Spencer`s "back radiation" there is no positive feed back from a cooler body to a hotter one and any "global warming" can`t come from 380 ppm CO2. Since Roy has been debunked by a whole lot of engineers he avoids debating this perpetual motion machine principle and the only way we could debate him since then is like Clint Eastwood debated Obama.



Before we leap off into the vote and the big finale --- I've got an issue with the question. 

Part of the hubbub here is that -- There is a diff between ENERGY and POWER. Both of these apply to thermal transfers. When you look only at STEADY STATE endpoints, you may know where the energy went -- but you don't account for the RATE of transfer. 

In your simple example -- introducing the cooler bar doesn't affect the thermal energy in the hotter bar, but it changes the discharge rate (power) that is lost from the hotter bar. Because the introduction of another heat source changes the relative thermal potentials in the tank. 

You need NOT have transfers from colder to warmer objects to make redeem Spencer's ego and reputation.. You only have to IMPEDE the rate of thermal discharge and therefore raise the heat RETENTION of the hot bar.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2012)

SSDD said:


> So where is the hotspot and where is the inevetable warming as CO2 has steadily increased?



The inevitable warming has been amply demonstrated by amazing devices called "thermometers". 

The hotspot is more complicated. There never was a "hotspot" predicted. More like a "warmspot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics. And data seems to say the warmspot is there. It's a remarkably difficult thing to measure. Satellite measurements of the upper troposphere are a recent thing. Previous measurements could only be done by weather balloons, and those have major issues concerning lack of coverage in the tropics and different calibration schemes over different areas and different decades. The balloon data to work with just isn't there, so they've had to use different proxies, and those seem to show the upper tropospheric warming in the tropics. Like this study.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1025.html

The more interesting thing is the stratospheric cooling. That's completely counter-intuitive, but it's exactly what the models predicted, and it's been measured beyond any shadow of doubt. Major, major win there for AGW theory, and nobody has come up with any theory to explain it aside from AGW theory. AGW theory successfully explains the observed data and other theories don't, which is why AGW theory has the credibility.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2012)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The same for the backscatter radiation of CO2 and infrared. No matter what the temperature of the CO2 molecule, if it recieves absorbs a photon, then emits one or more photons, multiple lower energy photons, the temperature of whatever those photons hits is as irrelevant as the temperature of the emittling atom or molecule. If absorbed and not relected, it will deliver it's energy to whatever it hits. Hot, cold, or somewhere inbetween.
> ...



You really are that fucking dumb.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2012)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So according to the kooks, the last century of physics is all completely wrong.
> ...



Can't find plate tectonics being taught prior to 1950, either. As for your statement that the physics being taught for the last 40 years is wrong, are you an atmospheric physicist? Are you a physicist at all? And if you are not, why should I consider your unsupported opinion equal to that of atmospheric physicists?


----------



## IanC (Nov 29, 2012)

polarbear's experiment-


> A solar oven is designed to capture solar energy to heat something to a higher temperature than the surrounding air. You put an object in a mirrored box with a glass lid. Radiation comes in, reflects, and strikes the object in the box, warming it up. Basically, the object sees more light from the sun than it otherwise would.
> But suppose we turned this idea around. If you put an object in the solar oven but replace the top with something that transmits infrared.
> Then we put the box out at night and point it at open sky.
> What happens? It makes a refrigeratora space refrigerator. The object cools to a lower temperature than the surrounding air!



why are you presenting examples to support my side? the low emissivity of the mirrors, coupled with the easy egress of radiation from all sides of the object will of course allow it to become cooler. that's the point! you have effectively increased the radiating surface, and created a virtual cooler environment by the use of mirrors to send most of the radiation straight out in the coldest direction.

this is the reverse of Spencer's experiment. instead of adding a plate to increase the first object's temperature, you are subtracting a plate in a virtual way to decrease its temperature. thanks for the help but I am not sure why you did it.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Can you prove that?  Assumptions, even assumptions by physicists are just that and shouldn't be confused with observed fact.



You really are that fucking dumb.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect[/QUOTE]

I didn't see anything there but more assumptions.  Which part is it that you believe is proof of the claim that you made?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2012)

IanC said:


> why are you presenting examples to support my side? the low emissivity of the mirrors, coupled with the easy egress of radiation from all sides of the object will of course allow it to become cooler. that's the point! you have effectively increased the radiating surface, and created a virtual cooler environment by the use of mirrors to send most of the radiation straight out in the coldest direction.



If there were downdwelling radiation, it would not be the coldest direction.  Downdwelling radiation would prevent the cooling.  There is no way that the interior of the box could drop to a temperature below the ambient if it were capturing downdwelling radiation of the magnitude that warmists and lukewarmers claim.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 29, 2012)

I have been sitting back watching the responses. So far even the  responses the defenders of AGW have been far more intelligent than many  of the responses that Roy Spencer, who originated the *WARMING* "back-radiation" effect gave.
For example OldRocks said:


> OK.  I use a UV lamp for prospecting and mineral identification. A crystal  of scheelite floureces brilliant star blue in shortwave UV. It does not  matter whether the lamp is warm and the crystal is cold, or the lamp is  cold and the crystal is warm. That is because the cause of the  flourescence is at the atomic level, a quantum effect. The same for the  backscatter radiation of CO2 and infrared. No matter what the  temperature of the CO2 molecule, if it recieves absorbs a photon, then  emits one or more photons, multiple lower energy photons, the  temperature of whatever those photons hits is as irrelevant as the  temperature of the emittling atom or molecule. If absorbed and not  relected, it will deliver it's energy to whatever it hits. Hot, cold, or  somewhere inbetween.



There is no implicit violation  of Kirchhoffs second law or any violation of the second law of  thermodynamics in the way he has interpreted his observation.
If I  wanted to split hairs in order to unfairly discredit a counter argument  like that I could harp on a few  minor & irrelevant errors.

On the other hand the above statement does not substantiate Roy Spencer`s claim that photons emitted from a colder object can *warm *a warmer object.
So  if OldRocks would have handed in a paper like that in a thermodynamics  exam I would not have failed it...but as an engineer I have to point out  that photons are not *HEAT* energy, no matter at what wavelength.
Yes, any photon at any wavelength *represents* an EQUIVALENT amount of "heat energy" but that does not mean that it is *CONVERTED*  into heat and can elevate temperature, which is what Roy Spencer is doing in his "Yes Virginia" deception.

No  matter how often and how many engineers,...also NASA engineers have  reminded Roy that a photon detector is not a thermometer he keeps  insisting that it is, because it is possible to calibrate a photon  detector so it can be used as a thermometer.
A Thermometer however is  an entirely different principle because it can not only register the  heat flow it receives from surrounding matter by conduction, but also  responds, however only in part to the "heat" it registers from photons  that can be transmitted through a vacuum. But only the part of the  energy of these photons that have been converted into heat with the  material of the thermometer .
Like the glass and the red dye and alcohol.
A photon detector for example a light sensitive diode or a "photo-transistor" or any "photo-multiplier" *does not have to convert photons* into heat energy and actually warm up anything in order to measure the energy photons carry.

No  matter how often that is explained to Roy Spencer he either just  pretends not to understand the difference or he really does not  understand.
For the last 6 months he simply refuses to engage in any debate which centers on that point.

Okay now to IanC`s comment:


> I vote for CO2 being able to absorb and scatter certain frequencies of outbound radiation from the surface.


That`s  not what we are voting on here. CO2 absorbs IR, so do many other  substances and and an entire sector of modern analytical chemistry  relies on that fact.
And then You added:


> while I must admit I did not read all of your lonnnnng and rambling  post, I am interested as to why you and the engineer call the scattering  of IR a perpetual motion machine.



Which tells me it  was`nt long enough because You still did not catch on at which point Roy  Spencer has either gone off the deep end or started to lie and cheat  deliberately.
If You consider the length of the text it takes to  quote even only a minimum of the part of thermodynamics where Roy  Spencer is totally full of b.s. then I`ll try and explain it to You the  way I`ld have to explain it to someone who has no back ground in science  instead of quoting the science itself.

Let me google that for you

Pick any one and in almost every one has a "user manual  instruction " similar to this one



> How to Use the Solar Funnel as a Refrigerator/Cooler
> 
> 1. The funnel is directed at the dark night sky. It should not "see" any buildings or even trees. (The thermal radiation from walls, trees, or even clouds *will diminish the cooling effect*.).



See this is the part where Roy Spencer *still manages to fool You.

**Diminishing *the (radiative) * cooling *is stating it correctly.
But that`s not what Roy is claiming. Roy claims :
"Yes Virgina cold objects can warm a warmer object even warmer still"
And  at that point any engineer will tell You flat out that he has gone from  photon  & quantum physics to fiction and perpetual motion:
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Equivalence of the statements
> Derive Kelvin Statement from Clausius Statement
> 
> Suppose  there is an engine violating the Kelvin statement: i.e.,one that drains  heat and converts it completely into work in a cyclic fashion without  any other result. Now pair it with a reversed Carnot engine as shown by  the graph. The net and sole effect of this newly created engine  consisting of the two engines mentioned is transferring heat \Delta  Q=Q\left(\frac{1}{\eta}-1\right) from the cooler reservoir to the hotter  one, which violates the Clausius statement. Thus a violation of the  Kelvin statement implies a violation of the Clausius statement, i.e. the  Clausius statement implies the Kelvin statement. We can prove in a  similar manner that the Kelvin statement implies the Clausius statement,  and hence the two are equivalent.




And  the radiative transfer equivalent of the above law that Roy Spencer is  either too stupid to comprehend or is deliberately falsifying and  "*explained*" it  to a "Virginia" which has no science background and he managed to convince with that *diminishing *radiative transfer is the *same as warming* an object.

So then what`s happening here....?


> The  funnel is directed at the dark night sky. It should not "see" any  buildings or even trees. (The thermal radiation from walls, trees, or  even clouds will diminish the cooling effect.).



Why don`t You just go ahead and try it out...
If  You had, then You would observe that the object You want to cool in a  "solar fridge" will drop to a minimum temperature which *is the same* as the cloud or the building where the "extra" photons came from that *DIMINISH* the cooling You would get if Your solar fridge reflector is pointed at a clear night sky.
*There is no way *You can make the object in the solar fridge *warmer*  than the object that emitted the "Yes Virginina" photons....and  actually heat the warm object with a colder one...now You are smack in  the middle of what engineers call the perpetual motion principle and  what climate science has been selling to the public.
I`m an engineer and I say yes, CO2 can in fact *DIMINISH*  a very tiny fraction of the radiative transfer, but that is a an  entirely insignificant fraction in comparison to what water vapor *DIMINISHES *.
The important thing is to understand the difference between diminish and *WARMING* !
Spencer`s  dumb "Virginia" may never be able to understand it,...and I`m not sure  if Spencer can`t either or is hoping that no engineer can explain that  difference to all these "Virginias" .....because their first response is  similar to You`s when You say:



> while I must admit *I did not read* all of your *lonnnnng and rambling  *post


Well IanC, at least I have tried !
The  important thing is that Roy or any of the other quacks that use these  "Spencer photons" to make a case for AGW can`t fool any engineers and  that these "Spencer" photons exist only in "Virginia`s" Lalah Land and  not in the real universe..
else this could really happen:


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2012)

> polarbear said-And the radiative transfer equivalent of the above law that Roy Spencer is either too stupid to comprehend or is deliberately falsifying and "explained" it to a "Virginia" which has no science background and he managed to convince with that diminishing radiative transfer is the same as warming an object.




hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer', so we were wrong????? all the times I said it was the sun makinging the surface warmer because the surface couldnt radiate energy away as efficiently because of GHGs, and you never thought to say, "yes your concept is right but you wording could be more precise".

Spencer wrote a simple article to explain to laymen the basic ideas in heat transfer. he said that adding a second plate would increase the temperature of the heated plate which is what happens. now you are saying that he is not only wrong but a liar because your definition of warming is different than the common usage of 'warming'. would you have been OK if he had said the second plate warms the first indirectly? or does he get zero marks for omitting the phrase "diminishing radiative transfer"?

SSDD accused me of lying just so that I could be 'right'. I am only arguing the warmists' side (and only a small, narrow portion of it) because I think it is stupid to alienate normal, less than scientifically literate people by ridiculing an obvious mechanism. remember when wirebender 'proved' that blankets make you colder? you guys argue definitions and technicalities, and ignore reality. blankets make you warmer (oops, I guess I should put "diminishing radiative transfer" in there somewhere, huh?) and greenhouse gases make the surface of the earth warmer. 

some of my best friends are blowhards like you. typically they know how to get things done. but you are doing a disservise to the skeptical side by saying Spencer is wrong. you could easily point out that back radiation doesnt _directly_ heat the surface, instead it changes the conditions which _indirectly_ cause the sun's input to warm the surface more efficiently causing a temperature rise. instead you just say Spencer is wrong and allow people to think that no warming happens even though it does (if we could separate it out from all the other factors).


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2012)

> Diminishing the (radiative) cooling is stating it correctly.
> But that`s not what Roy is claiming. Roy claims :
> "Yes Virgina cold objects can warm a warmer object even warmer still"
> And at that point any engineer will tell You flat out that he has gone from photon & quantum physics to fiction and perpetual motion:
> ...


this is your perpetual motion machine!!?? you do realize that Spencer's first plate was heated by electricity, and the earth is heated by the sun, right? I fail to see how ordered input being transfered into disordered output is breaking any thermodynamic laws, let alone being accused of being a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer', so we were wrong????? all the times I said it was the sun makinging the surface warmer because the surface couldnt radiate energy away as efficiently because of GHGs, and you never thought to say, "yes your concept is right but you wording could be more precise".



So once more, where is the hot spot and why do you have to cool an instrument to a temperature far below the ambient in order to measure so called downdwelling radiation?



IanC said:


> some of my best friends are blowhards like you. typically they know how to get things done. but you are doing a disservise to the skeptical side by saying Spencer is wrong.



Not when he actually is wrong.  It is a disservice to everyone to promote a weaker magic than rabid warmists when even the weaker magic is incorrect.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2012)

SSDD- you have seen Spencer's set up. are you saying that the first plate which is being supplied with a constant input of energy will not have a rise in temperature on the outside surfaces when a second plate is put into the thermos?


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2012)

Dr. Spencer said-


> Since the temperature of an object is a function of both energy gain AND energy loss, the temperature of the plate (or anything else) can be raised in 2 basic ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. The temperature of everything is determined by energy flows in and out, and one needs to know both to determine whether the temperature will go up or down. This is a consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics involving conservation of energy.



some posters like SSDD say that radiation from the atmosphere can't be absorbed by the surface. where does it go then? if it disappears between emission and absorption then that is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. no answer to that question is just as feeble as wirebender's battle to a standstill clash of the 'EM fields'.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> some posters like SSDD say that radiation from the atmosphere can't be absorbed by the surface. where does it go then?



Where indeed since there doesn't exist a single measurement of said radiation hitting the ground.......ever.

The second law says that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a region of cool to a region of warm.  That strongly suggests that the radiation doesn't even go in that direction any more than a marble will spontaneously roll up a hill.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 30, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > some posters like SSDD say that radiation from the atmosphere can't be absorbed by the surface. where does it go then?
> ...



HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does. 

If I have a power transistor dissipating 1W -- how can I make it hotter? *I can crank up the music OR I can increase the ROOM TEMPERATURE !!!!! *Don't even BOTHER with the EM component of what the critter is putting out. HEAT is flowing to the ROOM (a cooler object), but the ROOM temp determines the internal temp of the transistor.

This is (like I said before) to do with TRANSIENT analysis rather than STEADY STATE analysis because what determines surface temps is ENERGY -- not POWER. And the Thermodynamic aspects of GW heating are the predominant tool in increasing surface warming ---- NOT BECAUSE of back radiation of IR --- but because the ROOM TEMPERATURE has raised the "thermal resistance" of the Troposphere.. 

There is a daily influx of EM radiation that pumps the earth surface temperature. If you build up a higher thermal resistance in the lower tropo -- the surface will get hotter REGARDLESS of "back radiation" of EM... 

For some odd reason --- some of us are stuck on the concept that EM re-radiation of IR is ALL that is involved here. What EM radiation CO2 can absorb it will. ALL ABSORBED EM is first converted to heat BEFORE any re-radiation occurs. There is no photon to photon instaneous transaction. 

CO2 can ALSO hold heat. So it has the capacity to store and forward THERMAL energy as well. And THAT is primarily how the surface gets heated.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> > Diminishing the (radiative) cooling is stating it correctly.
> > But that`s not what Roy is claiming. Roy claims :
> > "Yes Virgina cold objects can warm a warmer object even warmer still"
> > And at that point any engineer will tell You flat out that he has gone from photon & quantum physics to fiction and perpetual motion:
> ...


____



IanC said:


> hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer', so we were wrong????? all the times I said it was the sun makinging the surface warmer because the surface couldnt radiate energy away as efficiently because of GHGs, and you never thought to say, "yes your concept is right but you wording could be more precise".



To raise the temperature with You need photons that carry a higher energy quantum ( shorter wavelength, coming from a hotter source)...not more photons that carry a lower quantum, (longer wavelength, coming from a cooler source).
Else You could "blue shift" a stationary spot  of red light by irradiating this  spot with more red light. 
Try it out with a dozen 635 nm visible red pen light lasers,...You can by them almost anywhere.
Then bounce them off a surface and show  with a monochromator that You got any reflected light with a wavelength shorter than 635 nm , which is "warmer"
*It will assure You the next Nobel prize in physics.*


Spencer`s claim goes even beyond that, his claim implies that You should be able to create shorter wavelength light  with more 750 nm longer wavelength laser light.
Not that he ever attempted that. All he "did" ( if a mere sketch qualifies as "did") is using a non existing hotplate which he says can get hotter if he would place a cold object next to it in a vacuum chamber.

And You are still fool enough to reply here:


> you do realize that Spencer's first plate was heated by electricity...


That shows not only that neither You nor Spencer don`t even understand how an electric hot plate works, never mind understanding quantum physics.
Spencer`s phantasy hot plate would have to be at an equilibrium temperature before we even begin this foolish experiment right...?
That means that it has settled in at a resistance in Ohms which limits the Power as in (a) Volts * (a) Volts / (b) Ohms =(c) Watts.
a is constant, but I have never seen an electric heater where the resistance (b) in Ohms does not increase but remained constant as the temperature goes up..
How then would You prevent "Spencer`s first plate" which is heated by electricity not to impede the amount of electrical energy which flowed through it
before these back radiation photons from the colder plate heated it up to a higher temperature than the initial equilibrium temperature,...therefore
increasing the Ohms and dropping the Watts of electrical power that had raised it to the equilibrium temperature.

Spencer`s knowledge of physics is not much better than the "Virginia" he is talking about.
Are You by any chance the "Virginia" he is talking about?




> SSDD- you have seen Spencer's set up. are you saying that the first plate which is being *supplied with a constant input of energy* will not have a rise in temperature on the outside surfaces when a second plate is put into the thermos?


I can see that You don`t know, but if Spencer  did know that the resistance of his heater goes up as the temperature goes up, then why is he using an electric hot plate...?

 I tell You why, because if he would substitute the electric hot plate with a IR radiation source he would have to make the claim
that he can  create higher energy short wave light ,  with lower energy longer wavelength light...which is a perpetual motion variant that uses radiative heat transfer instead of conductive heat transfer

The only thing that Spencer has re-invented is that the rate of cooling can be diminished which still fools You 
that this is the same thing as if he had actually  warmed something up.
To which You say:


> hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer'


To which I reply:
After explaining it so many times, even a "Yes Virginia" housewife would know the difference by now, between what a rate of cooling is and actually warming something up to a higher temperature than it was before.
Spencer`s hybrid hot plate,  which uses electric energy and some Lalah-land frequency shiftable photons would make every conventional heat source  obsolete.
For that matter You would not even need a hot water tank. Maybe if we figure out the technology to do it in a vacuum chamber with reflective walls we could also heat  water to  72 C by holding a cup full between 2 hands instead of just grabbing it with one.
The fact that a *perfect *black body, which by the way exists only in theory can emit (very few) high energy (short wave) photons at lower temperatures is as un-related as it can get with a "science" that is  using a 30-35 % albedo earth as a "black body" and a   "Yes Virginia" pseudo-logic. *
And by the way CO2 does not emit any photons *that are at a *shorter wavelength *than *those it absorbed* either.
In Spencer`s "Yes Virginia" quantum fraud it should..!!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.



The second law isn't just about heat transfer.  It covers all energy transfer.  Energy won't move from a low energy region to a higher energy region any more than heat will move from a cold region to a warm region.

The second law covers all energy transfer whether it be pressure in a balloon moving from inside to outside to water flowing downhill, to electricity running down a line.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 30, 2012)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.
> ...



The Spencer cheat with the electric hot plate being a "constant" heat source analogy  is  complete bullshit, not only because the resistance of the heater increases and therefore drops the current at a constant voltage  if the "cold " bar would indeed contribute heat to the hotter bar. 
Matter of fact the main reason why Roy Spencer`s idiotic  "Yes Virginia" claim went viral on the internet  is because it is so full of errors of all sorts that it has become a favorite target for  engineers. 
It`s an engineers job to spot  flaws be they erroneous calculations, concepts that are flawed because they  are based on popular belief & myth or outright deliberate fraudulence rather than science.
After all  it`s the engineer who is being held responsible when the design does not work as advertised.
Personally I think that the * biggest cheat* Teflon Don Spencer is trying to slip past all these "Virginias" is that there is no real world possibility to arrange a second "colder object" to function as a heat radiation "blockage"...when the photon "back radition" argument fails Roy with the  electric  heat and  the heated bar. Then the slippery Teflon Roy  drops the electric heater like a hot potato.  How would Teflon Roy  arrange and position such a "colder bar"  so that it would not block the radiant heat source, which is supposed to remain at a constant output  when Teflon Roy uses the sun instead of  the electric heater,... which heated the warmer bar un-impeded and at a constant rate (*as Roy thought it could)* by  heat *conduction*....*and not radiation* (!!!)

Actually  Roy has not even the foggiest Idea and even admits it:


> Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
> July 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM
> 
> If I understand your question, then no, the maximum temperature the plate could reach for a given energy input has not been reached. The more you can reduce the rate of energy loss to the cold walls, the hotter the plate will get. Yes, the surrounding objects act to control the rate at which the plate can lose energy. I have no idea what happens if you can keep the plate from losing energy at all.I suspect the heater wire melts (Ha!)




*No Roy, *not unless You crank up the Voltage to make up for the resistance increase ( Resistivity at 20ºC &#937; mm2m-1 / 68ºF &#937;/cmf) as the wire filament heats up, limiting the power: 

Metallic heating elements



> Grade Maximum continuous operating temperature Resistivity at 20ºC &#937; mm2m-1 / 68ºF &#937;/cmf    *FeCrAl alloys*    Kanthal APM 1425ºC (2600ºF) 1.45/872    Kanthal A-1 1400ºC (2550ºF) 1.45/872    Kanthal AF 1300ºC (2370ºF) 1.39/836    Kanthal D 1300ºC (2370ºF) 1.35/812    Alkrothal 1100ºC (2010ºF) 1.25/744    *NiCr alloys*    Nikrothal 80 1200ºC (2190ºF) 1.09/255    Nikrothal 70 1250ºC (2280ºF) 1.18/709    Nikrothal 60 1150ºC (2100ºF) 1.11/668    Nikrothal 40 1100ºC (2010ºF) 1.04/626



The only way the equivalent scenario resembling what Roy is conjuring up with his silly chamber could only be invoked if  we had a clear cloud less sky *over  the entire hemisphere *that is sun lit and  *100% overcast which remains time & position synchronized over the entire dark hemisphere*
For that  all trade winds and  jet streams  would have to stop *all evaporation and convection* would have to be prevented on the sunny side and  the *380 ppm CO2  in the sun lit hemisphere must be transferred *to the dark hemisphere atmosphere and remain in that position.
*"Yes Virginia" *(and "IanC"),  that`s what it would take* in the real world *to have a situation which  Your Teflon daddy  is trying to pass off to engineers as  the real thing scenario with that electric heater con-job.
*Even then* the math that 380 CO2 ppm can cause a temperature curve  to look like the hockey stick *still does not add up.
*Even if all these conditions were met, in addition to that Roy`s "Yes Virginia thought experiment world" would have to transfer the heat from the sun baked side of the globe to the "up radiation blocking" hemisphere half a world away by *heat conduction *in order to have any similarity whatsoever with this idiotic "Yes Virginina thought experiment" when he switches from the electric heater analogy to the sun as a heat source.
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


>


Teflon Roy was confronted with that  and shifted the emphasis of his "reasoning" from a bar on one side to a complete "radiation blocking mantle "  which surrounds the "heated bar", like his heat blanket or the "walled in room" does. After he realized that he completely boxed himself in and the "real thing" would have to be a globe entirely shrouded with clouds and CO2 where the entire solar radiation enters through a pin-hole somewhere, Roy vanished from the engineering science debating scene into thin air...
His last reply was that he has no time...
Funny I can find every con he is trying to pull in very presentation and revised presentation and counter them while I`m multi-tasking it, babysitting my 3 great grand kids, update the software for their Xbox motion sensor and speech recognition plus re-arrange the furniture  so they have a large enough  "sweet spot" area 6 feet away from the sensor to jump around :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQEFEDm372c&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp

Hey I even lost a few pounds myself in the process...
Maybe it was all that  "back radiation" from the rest of the room that made me sweat. It`s almost as much fun as reading a Roy Spencer "science" comic.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > Diminishing the (radiative) cooling is stating it correctly.
> ...



why do you keep making strawmen? and why are you purposely misunderstanding Spencer's experiment?

the plate is not the heater itself, it has a heat source imbedded in it that makes the plate radiate at 150F at equilibrium in the cooled chamber. when you add the second plate and wait for equilibrium, the first plate must still radiate the same amount of energy but the conditions have changed. because part of the heated plate is now radiating into an area that is warmer than the cooled walls there has to be a shift in where the radiation is escaping. the unhindered surfaces must increase their radiation to balance the energy loss needed to keep the equilibrium. more radiation equals higher temperature. QED. the increase in straight-to-the-wall radiation exactly matches the decrease in radiation from the 'shadow' cast by the second plate. the energy sequestered in the second plate as a heat sink makes no difference after equilibrium has been reached.

now you are adding the strawman of creating high energy photons to the mix. sheesh! do you guys honestly believe that that a body loses heat at the same rate in an environment of  oC as it does in an environment of -100C? the body _radiates_ the same amount by definition, so why does it lose heat more quickly in the colder environment? because the environment is also radiating! why are you guys being deliberately obtuse?

if you dont agree that the first plate in Spencer's experiment warms up then explain where the energy went. first law of thermodynamics


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2012)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.
> ...





> The strictly defined physical term 'quantity of energy transferred as heat' has a resonance with the ordinary language noun 'heat' and the ordinary language verb 'heat'. This can lead to confusion if ordinary language is muddled with strictly defined physical language. In the strict terminology of physics, heat is defined as a word that refers to a process, not to a state of a system. In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting. In the strict physical sense, heat cannot be 'produced', because the usage 'production of heat' misleadingly seems to refer to a state variable. Thus, it would be physically improper to speak of 'heat production by friction', or of 'heating by adiabatic compression on descent of an air parcel' or of 'heat production by chemical reaction'; instead, proper physical usage speaks of conversion of kinetic energy of bulk flow, or of potential energy of bulk matter,[40] or of chemical potential energy, into internal energy, and of transfer of energy as heat. Occasionally a present-day author, especially when referring to history, writes of "adiabatic heating", though this is a contradiction in terms of present day physics.[41] Historically, before the concept of internal energy became clear over the period 1850 to 1869, physicists spoke of "heat production" where nowadays one speaks of conversion of other forms of energy into internal energy.[42]



you guys keep mixing up common usage of words with fixed definitions. you interpret other peoples' informal language to suit your own purpose.

Spencer said in a layman article that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer. he gave an example in simple terms. you then ignored his description of what happened and inserted your strawman version and declared a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (while ignoring your own violation of the first law).

objects above minus 273C radiate according to a planck curve distribution. true or false?

if two objects at the same temperature are side by side do they each emit and absorb the same amount of radiation from each other. yes or no. if yes then why isnt this a violation of the second law. if no then where did the radiation go?

you guys paint yourself into a corner, especially when you confuse macroscopic laws like the SLoT with the microscopic underpinnings that cause it. radiation is freely exchanged everywhere, net flow can only go from high to low.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2012)

IanC said:


> you guys keep mixing up common usage of words with fixed definitions. you interpret other peoples' informal language to suit your own purpose.



Again, I am not interpreting anything.  It is you who is interpreting.  I am telling you that energy, be it heat, radiation, gas under pressure, solid objects at rest, or any other sort of energy you care to name will not move spontaneously from a low energy state to a higher energy state.  

If you believe it will, then you are living in a fantasy land.



IanC said:


> Spencer said in a layman article that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer. he gave an example in simple terms. you then ignored his description of what happened and inserted your strawman version and declared a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (while ignoring your own violation of the first law).



He gave an example that could only exist in his mind and engineers tore him down to the point that he either had to admit that he was dead wrong or run away.  He chose to run away.



IanC said:


> objects above minus 273C radiate according to a planck curve distribution. true or false?



Yes they radiate.  So what.  When you turn on the faucet, the water in the pipes runs out.  There are forces at work, however, that determine which way that water can run and where it can go once it is out of the faucet.  The fact that objects radiate does not necessitate that they radiate in every direction.



IanC said:


> if two objects at the same temperature are side by side do they each emit and absorb the same amount of radiation from each other. yes or no. if yes then why isnt this a violation of the second law. if no then where did the radiation go?



Why do you keep going back to two objects of the same temperature.  We aren't talking about objects of the same temperature.  We are talking about energy transferrring from a cool object to a warm object.  That is the mechanism for AGW, not two objects of the same temperature.  You are going down the same lane as specer and it didn't work out well for him because he obviously didn't understand radiative transfer nearly as well as he though he did.  He invented a mental experiment that he thought would support his belief in the magic, and his experiment was torn to shreds by people who actually do understand radiative transfer to the point where they can be held monetarily responsible if their understanding is found lacking.  A position someone like roy spencer will never be in and as a result, his understanding is little more than a dalliance when compared to people whose livelyhoods depend on a complete and thorough understanding.



IanC said:


> you guys paint yourself into a corner, especially when you confuse macroscopic laws like the SLoT with the microscopic underpinnings that cause it. radiation is freely exchanged everywhere, net flow can only go from high to low.



It is you who is in a corner and you are trying to extricate yourself by diverting the discussion to one considering two objects of the same temperature.  Two objects of the same temperature isn't what got you into your corner.  Your belief that energy (any sort of energy) can transfer from a low energy state to a higher energy state is what got you where you are and I believe that somewhere in your mind you are finally coming to grips with the fact that it simply can't happen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2012)

Well, the fact that objects radiate certainly does not mean they radieat in evey direction. However, without constraints on them, that is exactly what they do. For sure gases do that, unless you put constraints on them as in a gaseous laser.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 1, 2012)

Polar bears eat baby seals.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, the fact that objects radiate certainly does not mean they radieat in evey direction. However, without constraints on them, that is exactly what they do. For sure gases do that, unless you put constraints on them as in a gaseous laser.



A warmer surface of the earth below would seem to be a constraint considering the fact that energy won't move spontaneously from a low energy state (cool) to a higher energy state (warm).


----------



## polarbear (Dec 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, the fact that objects radiate certainly does not mean they radieat in evey direction. However, without constraints on them, that is exactly what they do. For sure gases do that, unless you put constraints on them as in a gaseous laser.



What  is remarkable is that of all the pro-AGW forists You are the only one  who has it right. ...and only this part of Your statement  needs to be  qualified:



> However, without constraints on them


If You want to convert the thermal radiation Watts to a *temperature*  increase  with a gas, then You must prevent all other avenues, such as  expansion etc. Also You would have to find a way that the IR energy  fraction that  the CO2 absorbed is not expended to re-evaporate the  already condensed water in cloud layers. Then and only then does the *temperature increase *by an equivalent amount of the absorbed Watts.
Only an ideal black body can convert radiation watts quantitatively to heat as in increased temperature...but a gas can not

*Fact is*, that:

 CO2 can only re-emit IR of the same wavelengths that  it absorbed....and  *fact is *that a real earth with a 380 ppm CO2 atm.  unlike the "Spencer hot plate" can not be irradiated *with more* 10 to [FONT=Arial, Geneva]15 µm IR than what would have been "incoming" from the sun through an atmosphere that contains no CO2 at all.
*There is no way to make up, let alone INCREASE *the thermal energy at the CO2 absorption frequency band *that went missing *on the *down path *with the far from ideal "black body" effect of an earth with a 30 -35 % albedo on the up path.
....But Spencer says he can,...
Let`s not forget that Spencer ultimately does not just want to "prove" that[/FONT] an   insulated hot plate in a vacuum chamber looses heat slower than one  that is not insulated...he`s been "explaining" to a whole bunch of wide  eyed "Virginias" that this is how [FONT=Arial, Geneva]* CO2* causes *global warming *by "radiative *forcing*"...with the same *"extra energy"* he conjures up with an electric hot plate where insulation *merely saved energy. *

Take a step back and think how non-sensational a more *truthful statement* would be, such as "a *diminished rate of global cooling*" as compared to how Spencer, Al Gore etc have *spin doctored it into an increased rate of warming.*

The only friends Spencer etc would have live in hot climate zones and the rest of the world would tell him to go to hell.

To alarm the public Spencer,  M.Mann, Al Gore would have to begin blaming water vapor and  declare the most important natural substance which like CO2 is an  essential of life as we know it, to exist. Would they, then it would  indeed be very difficult to point out the cheat with which they managed  to carpet bag a lot of "Virginias" that are giving the IPCC the thumbs up to implement a world wide Carbon tax.



















[/FONT]


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 2, 2012)

PV=nRT


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2012)

SSDD said:


> Why do you keep going back to two objects of the same temperature.  We aren't talking about objects of the same temperature.  We are talking about energy transferrring from a cool object to a warm object.  That is the mechanism for AGW, not two objects of the same temperature.  You are going down the same lane as specer and it didn't work out well for him because he obviously didn't understand radiative transfer nearly as well as he though he did.  He invented a mental experiment that he thought would support his belief in the magic, and his experiment was torn to shreds by people who actually do understand radiative transfer to the point where they can be held monetarily responsible if their understanding is found lacking.  A position someone like roy spencer will never be in and as a result, his understanding is little more than a dalliance when compared to people whose livelyhoods depend on a complete and thorough understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




what an extraordinary lack of curiosity you have.

of course the example of two objects with the same temp is important! when you look at a local condition of most systems there are very little differences in temperature. what is the difference in temp one millimetre away in any direction when you examine a drop in the ocean, a wisp of air, a grain of sand? every particle in the universe is playing hot potato, trying to get rid of its energy faster than other particles can replace it with their own unwanted energy. 

warmer objects produce more radiation. not only do they radiate in every direction but the wavelength is variable as can easily be discerned by examining a Planck curve that visually describes the probability of what frequency will be emitted. any wavelength on the curve is possible but the highest point is most likely.






in one round of exchange (one photon each) the warmer and cooler objects may  both emit the same frequency, the warmer one may radiate a higher frequency, or the cooler object may radiate the more energetic photon. overall though, with many exchanges, the warmer object will radiate photons with an average frequency that is higher and it will radiate more of them. therefore there will be flow of energy to the cooler object.

objects at the same temperature simply swap photons until randomly generated and randomly orientated photons find an 'escape path'.


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2012)

polarbear said-


> Let`s not forget that Spencer ultimately does not just want to "prove" that an insulated hot plate in a vacuum chamber looses heat slower than one that is not insulated...he`s been "explaining" to a whole bunch of wide eyed "Virginias" that this is how CO2 causes global warming by "radiative forcing"...with the same "extra energy" he conjures up with an electric hot plate where insulation merely saved energy.



what on earth are you talking about??????????

Spencer said that the second plate changes the equilibrium by making part of the cold wall inaccessible to the heated plate. the energy loss to the wall exactly matches the energy input to the heated plate. the  extra radiation from the insulation warmed plate into the still accessible cold wall exactly matches the decreased radiation into the cold wall that lies in the 'shadow' of the second unheated plate.

why do you purposely misconstrue just about everything in Spencer's thought experiment? I doubt that it is stupidity therefore it must be something else.


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2012)

polarbear said-


> To alarm the public Spencer, M.Mann, Al Gore would have to begin blaming water vapor and declare the most important natural substance which like CO2 is an essential of life as we know it, to exist. Would they, then it would indeed be very difficult to point out the cheat with which they managed to carpet bag a lot of "Virginias" that are giving the IPCC the thumbs up to implement a world wide Carbon tax.




hahahahaha. just how uninformed are you that you would lump Spencer with Mann and Gore? he has been an outspoken critic of climate models and CAGW since the beginning, back when it was very dangerous for his career and it led to a lot of criticism from 'consensus scientists'.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> what an extraordinary lack of curiosity you have.



Ability to stay on topic is a lack of curiosity?  



IanC said:


> of course the example of two objects with the same temp is important! when you look at a local condition of most systems there are very little differences in temperature.



Au contraire....physically, there is a profound difference between two objects of the same temperature and two objects of different temperatures, no matter how slight that difference may be.  The second law speaks to the two objects of different temperatures and doesn't quibble about minute differences.



IanC said:


> warmer objects produce more radiation. not only do they radiate in every direction but the wavelength is variable as can easily be discerned by examining a Planck curve that visually describes the probability of what frequency will be emitted. any wavelength on the curve is possible but the highest point is most likely.



You have yet to prove that they radiate in every direction, especially when in the vicinity of a warmer object.  It is obvious that you believe it to be the case and perhaps not as obvious to everyone that your belief is based on an assumption as opposed to actual observation which should be easy enough if it were actually happening.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha. just how uninformed are you that you would lump Spencer with Mann and Gore? he has been an outspoken critic of climate models and CAGW since the beginning, back when it was very dangerous for his career and it led to a lot of criticism from 'consensus scientists'.



As has already been stated, Spencer believes in the magic, he just doesn't believe the magic is as powerful as the likes of Mann and Gore.  Magical thinking is still magical thinking no matter how powerful you believe the magic to be.


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahaha. just how uninformed are you that you would lump Spencer with Mann and Gore? he has been an outspoken critic of climate models and CAGW since the beginning, back when it was very dangerous for his career and it led to a lot of criticism from 'consensus scientists'.
> ...



why should anyone care that you have already stated that Spencer believes in _the magic?_ 

I mean really, you believe in your own magic. and you wont even try to describe the mechanism by which you think some all powerful gatekeeper stops individual particles from radiating in certain directions. is it perhaps Laplace's Daemon?


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > what an extraordinary lack of curiosity you have.
> ...



well, when you are arguing against the null hypothesis that point sources of radiation emit radiation in all directions I think that you should put _some_ effort into explaining your position.

let us go back to the Planck curves. 






do you at least agree that the object can produce a photon from anywhere along the curve?

is there any specific cutoff that you would like to define for the difference of 20C between the curves.

do you see that there is almost perfect overlap between the curves as far as the actual wavelength that they can produce?

how does the warmer object stop the cooler object from radiating? where does that radiation go? does it just disappear? isnt that against the first law, conservation of energy? can you at least make some semblance of an answer to this very basic question?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> [
> I mean really, you believe in your own magic. and you wont even try to describe the mechanism by which you think some all powerful gatekeeper stops individual particles from radiating in certain directions. is it perhaps Laplace's Daemon?



Can you describe the actual mechanism of gravity?  I'm sure there is a nobel in it for you if you can and we understand gravity far better, and gravity is much simpler than the physics that drive energy exchanges.

You act like you actually "know" something when the truth is that not even the most brilliant minds on the planet actually know the things you claim are happening and not a bit of observed evidence exists in support of those claims.  Your claims are based on nothing more than mathematical models of physical forces that we simply don't understand.


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




really? you are taking the 'unknowable' way out?

I asked you point blank whether objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other, because that is the logical extension of what you have been saying, and you refuse to answer. but you are POSITIVE that no energy whatsoever can move from a cooler object to a warmer one. not even a single photon, randomly fired off. 

conservation of energy doesnt matter to you. centuries of observations and measurements dont matter to you. only the second law matters to you, and you admit that you have no concept of how it works. 

man o man. why do I always seem to end up wasting my time with idiots like you? you know nothing and only endlessly repeat the same talking points over and over.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> really? you are taking the 'unknowable' way out?
> 
> I asked you point blank whether objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other, because that is the logical extension of what you have been saying, and you refuse to answer. but you are POSITIVE that no energy whatsoever can move from a cooler object to a warmer one. not even a single photon, randomly fired off.
> 
> ...



Before I point out who the idiot is I`ll list the  collection of Your replies :



> now you are adding the strawman of creating high energy photons to the mix. sheesh! do you guys honestly believe that that a body loses heat at the same rate in an environment of oC as it does in an environment of -100C? the body radiates the same amount by definition, so why does it lose heat more quickly in the colder environment? because the environment is also radiating! why are you guys being deliberately obtuse?
> 
> if you dont agree that the first plate in Spencer's experiment warms up then explain where the energy went. first law of thermodynamicswell, when you are arguing against the null hypothesis that point sources of radiation emit radiation in all directions I think that you should put some effort into explaining your position.
> 
> ...


You just don`t get, just like all the other simple minded "Virginias" simply can`t get it either what the whole Spencer-Teflon Don- Con is all about.
*You are the one* that keeps coming back with the same crap over an over again. It simply does not dawn on You that CO2 can`t absorb just any photons can You...? CO2 does not care with how many photons (as in flux, or intensity)  irradiate it *that aren`t at the wavelength *it can absorb.
Here take a look:







Everything else goes right by the CO2 because it is "transparent" to light of all  other wavelengths

So tell me now, is the sun hotter than the earth or is it the other way around ?
So which of the 2 emits more photons at *ANY* wavelength, *including those the CO2 can absorb *?...The white hot sun or the far less than ideal  "black body",the earth which is supposed to be "glowing" red hot with all these Spencer photons? 
*Nobody is "denying" that there are some that are emitted at the right wavelength, and are blocked by the CO2..*.
*Roy says there are more trying to be going out than came in,*

By the time sunlight reaches the ground it has passed through almost *1000 kilometers air with 380 molar ppm CO2*. Even if You don`t have a clue about Beer-Lambert`s law it should have dawned on You that it *absorbed a lot more light at the CO2 absorption wavelength*, than a much cooler earth could possibly produce with "black body" radiation.

But it doesn`t dawn on You, neither does it *still not* dawn on You that CO2 has nothing in common with this idiotic "experiment"...an "experiment" that exists only as an MSPAINT picture on Roy`s blogs. You come back here with stuff like "hahahah" like some dumb teenager would. 

You call others "idiots" *who unlike You, they do understand* that CO2 can`t absorb *all the IR* like Roy`s "cooler object" which is some sort of *solid bar *made from an unspecified material.....and then expand the that bar principle which Roy is using like a stupid-stick into the realm of the Beer Lambert law without regard that *CO2 is transparent* to *all other light* which is *outside the absorption spectral bands *and has *absolutely nothing in common with a solid object*,.... which can *block it all*...

The only photons CO2 can "back radiate" are those few that are at exactly at the right wavelength which it could absorb and were emitted from a surface much cooler than  molten lava. In fact they are so few that at 380 ppm a path length of ~ 10 meters does it all to "block" them.
What do You think would happen to an infrared sensor with band filters that are are *transparent * at the CO2 absorption wavelengths  on a low orbit satellite  if You would point it directly at the sun instead of the earth ?
If CO2 were blocking more energy from leaving the earth than what has been blocked by it from reaching the earth then You would burn out the same sensor when You point it from shoulder height to the ground...

Since Roy won`t or can`t explain, *why don`t You?*... 

How CO2 could add some sort of "radiative forcing energy " with the small amount of energy which resides at this frequency and came from a warm body, *while a huge amount of energy* at the same frequency was blocked from reaching the warmed body way up above it ?



> if you dont agree that the first plate in Spencer's experiment warms up then explain where the energy went.


You got it all wrong,...*none of us owes any explanation* where the energy Roy conjures up *"went"*...*Roy has to explain *where his extra energy *came from*. The same Roy that convinced Virginia and You that a solid bar has the same optical properties as a gas.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2012)

IanC said:


> really? you are taking the 'unknowable' way out?



I am not taking any way out.  I am pointing out to you that most of what you have claimed to "know" so far has been no more than assumptions based on still questionable mathematical models.  You don't seem to realise that.



IanC said:


> I asked you point blank whether objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other, because that is the logical extension of what you have been saying, and you refuse to answer. but you are POSITIVE that no energy whatsoever can move from a cooler object to a warmer one. not even a single photon, randomly fired off.



And I pointed out to you that there is a profound difference between objects of the same temperature and objects of a different temperature no matter how slight that difference is.  The second law speaks to that difference in temperature no matter how small it is.  You aren't going to get out of your corner by changing the topic to objects of the same temperature.



IanC said:


> conservation of energy doesnt matter to you. centuries of observations and measurements dont matter to you. only the second law matters to you, and you admit that you have no concept of how it works.



Conservation of energy doesn't negate the second law and when you start talking about energy transfer from a cool region of a lower energy state to a warm region of a higher energy state you run afoul of the second law.



IanC said:


> man o man. why do I always seem to end up wasting my time with idiots like you? you know nothing and only endlessly repeat the same talking points over and over.



You don't know much either ian.  The fact is none of us do.  You don't seem to be aware of that because you have placed your faith in models that just don't jibe with the physical laws.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2012)

polarbear said:


> You got it all wrong,...*none of us owes any explanation* where the energy Roy conjures up *"went"*...*Roy has to explain *where his extra energy *came from*.



That is it, that's the rock bottom, bedrock, at the heart of the issue and the source of the sleight of hand magic that supports the AGW scam.   That extra energy is conjured literally out of thin air and anyone who believes it is there, is, in fact, a Virgina.

Very well said.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 4, 2012)

IanC said:


> you guys paint yourself into a corner,....
> 
> but the wavelength is variable as can easily be discerned by examining a Planck curve that visually describes the probability of what frequency will be emitted.


Roy ignores all the energy feed barriers that exist in the real world which has to obey the laws of physics.
As Roy`s electric hot plate gets hotter the internal resistance increases  the current drops curtailing a temperature catastrophe.


In the real world  the most important solar radiation energy feed barrier is water vapor, which increases quantitatively as the temperature goes up and decreases the solar radiation *over a wide range of the spectrum*, not just where the absorption region of water vapor is, but also as a condensate (clouds) by reflecting the sunlight from above...something CO2 no matter how concentrated can not do.


Roy side steps the laws of physics that apply to the real world with a fictitious "result" he says can be observed with an "experiment"
that* consists only of a drawing and  Roy`s  talk.*
He bridges the energy barriers that incoming solar radiation would encounter with wires that feed un- impeded power from the outside into the inside of his silly and fictitious chamber experiment that uses a solid object  which can block light *over the entire EM spectrum *(except maybe X-rays) from leaving his vacuum chamber.
Then he goes on and makes his case, with some success as long as his critics are only Yes-sayer Virginias instead of engineers, that
the sun can do the same thing as the wires in his drawing....and that CO2 can block radiation the same  as solid object, his "cooler object"
in his drawing.
The rest of the climate "science" lot is arriving at a conclusion, that the earth has only a 30% "average" albedo, yet is able to reshape a radiation frequency profile the *same way a theoretical perfect  black body*  would...*and it would have to be a perfect black body *to shape the outgoing *radiation frequency profile so* *that it conforms to Planck`s distribution  curve.*
Last not least this pseudo science is using this error to* re- invent the UV catastrophe *that would occur if  you wrongly interpret Planck`s law 
as it once has been  for such an event to occur,....the *only difference *is that climate "scientists" create this fantasy world catastrophe at the *lower side of the EM spectrum *to conjure up an *IR catastrophe* for which the CO2 we added is supposed to be responsible.
However, unlike the IR catastrophe the UV catastrophe has been *recognized as bogus*, because *real science *is constantly re-examined by *real scientists.*
While climate "science"  refuses to do so and uses "Yes Virginias" and the news media instead, to whip up public fear and concern  to get a  "majority consensus" as a "proof"  with their  sorry version of  peer review.


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > really? you are taking the 'unknowable' way out?
> ...



you are making more strawmen.

here are a few excerpts from the article Spencer wrote which led him to add the 'Yes, Virginia' example. My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.



> 7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere cant cause warming anyway. They claim things like, the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn't mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more should cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But Im still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.





> 11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.





> 12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they cant think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, its not that there is evidence nature cant be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.





> 13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming? This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth  due to natural changes in cloud cover  are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an external source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.





> Concluding Remarks
> 
> Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on averagebut the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.
> 
> ...



I have actually read what Spencer has to say. judging from your responses I am assuming that you have only read criticisms of Spencer's thought experiment.


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2012)

next we go on to the actual 'Virginia' piece. Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.



> I&#8217;m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible.
> 
> More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming.
> 
> ...



the thought experiment-


> The plate will eventually reach a constant temperature (let&#8217;s say 150 deg. F.) where the rate of energy gain by the plate from electricity equals the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation to the cooled chamber walls.
> 
> Now, let&#8217;s put a second plate next to the first plate. The second plate will begin to warm in response to the infrared energy being emitted by the heated plate. Eventually the second plate will also reach a state of equilibrium, where its average temperature (let&#8217;s say 100 deg. F) stays constant with time. This is shown in the next illustration:





> But what will happen to the temperature of the heated plate in the process? It will end up even hotter than it was before the cooler plate was placed next to it. This is because the second plate reduced the rate at which the first plate was losing energy.
> 
> (If you are unconvinced of this, then imagine that the second plate completely surrounds the heated plate. Will the heated plate remain at 150 deg., and not warm at all?)
> 
> ...





> What happens is that the second plate is heated by IR radiation being emitted by the first plate, raising its temperature. The second plate, in turn, cannot cool to the temperature of the vacuum chamber walls (0 deg. F) because it is not in direct contact with the refrigerant being used&#8230;it can only lose IR at a rate which increases with temperature, so it achieves some intermediate temperature.
> 
> Meanwhile, the cooler plate is emitting more radiation toward the hot plate than the cold walls of the vacuum chamber would have emitted. This changes the energy budget of the hot plate: despite a constant flow of energy into the plate from the electric heater, it has now lost some of its ability to cool through IR radiation. Its temperature then rises until it, once again, is emitting IR radiation at the same rate as it is receiving energy from its surroundings (and the electric heater).





> Extending the Concept to the Atmosphere
> 
> As mentioned above, in the case of the cold depths of outer space surrounding the Earth&#8217;s solar-heated surface, _*ANY infrared absorber that gets between the Earth&#8217;s surface and space will cause the surface to warm.*_
> 
> ...



and specifically for the Second Law crowd-


> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Can Energy &#8220;Flow Uphill&#8221;?
> In the case of radiation, the answer to that question is, &#8220;yes&#8221;. While heat conduction by an object always flows from hotter to colder, in the case of thermal radiation a cooler object does not check what the temperature of its surroundings is before sending out infrared energy. It sends it out anyway, no matter whether its surroundings are cooler or hotter.
> 
> Yes, thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions.
> ...




polarbear- I cannot fathom how you can be so adverse to Spencer if you have read his actual writing rather than just someone else's interpretation of what he said. his thought experiment is a generalization, that is what thought experiments are. I could nitpick his illustrations etc too, but his point was that cooler objects can alter the equilibrium temperatures of the heat flow at different points along the pathway from input to eventual escape. and he did so.


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2012)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > You got it all wrong,...*none of us owes any explanation* where the energy Roy conjures up *"went"*...*Roy has to explain *where his extra energy *came from*.
> ...



OK polarbear- where does Spencer say extra energy is conjured up. be specific.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 4, 2012)

IanC said:


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



You come in here and say to me "Oh we did not use your magic  phrase diminished cooling" while You insisted that it`s the same effect as heating and now after You finally grasped how dumb that was You are asking me to go through Spencer`s idiotic blog pages to use the exact same words Spencer did...while You should by now know full well that he claims that his electrically heated plate is getting heated even more from his cooler plate, bar whatever he stuck into his imaginary chamber....that imparts "more", "extra" or whatever he did call it,...."energy", "heat" , "watts"  on the hot object in his "yes Vigrinia a cooler objects can make warmer objects warmer still ".
How exactly would You raise the temperature of a mass (the hot bar with the electric heater) that had already stabilized at a maximum temperature with the electric energy (in Watt seconds) You supplied so far *without* any "extra" energy...???
I don`t care what kind of "heater" You pick...they draw the most amps when the heating element is cold and has the least resistance. So does an incandescent light bulb. Once a heater such as Spencer`s has reached this maximum temperature at which it also has a resistance high enough to inhibit any further temperature increase. Any new object that has a mass and can accept heat from this heated bar will do so and by doing so it will have drawn on the energy that has been stored by the heated mass of the heated bar...cooling it down,....unless You make up with "extra", "or more" energy...(or whatever You or Spencer call it )...which will come in through the wires to this idiotic setup from the EXTERNAL power source...
If You say Spencer *does not need any extra external energy* then either he or You has to show where the energy that raised the temperature to a higher one as it was before *came from*. 

To that You replied "hahahaa" tell me then *where the energy went *if that bar does not heat up to a higher temperature with Spencer`s "back radiation photons" from the cooler bar.

How many times does that have to be explained and re- explained before You finally realize how Spencer conned his Virginia ?
He is using an electric current not photons to "simulate" the energy influx from solar radiation and would still have to increase the voltage to overcome the increased resistance to raise the heated bar to a temperature higher than it was before. If You raise the voltage to get more watts then "extra energy" was *ADDED*.
In Spencer`s screwed up universe not a single heat exchanger we have would be able to cool a condensate in a condenser.
Or are You denying that the cooler inside mantle which faces a hot vapor can`t radiate IR...?
Every condenser I have seen is a "counter stream" condenser where the coolant inlet is at the same end as the condensate outlet, where both, the condensate and the coolant are at their lowest temperature.
At the hot vapor intake where the hot coolant outlet is every condenser the best engineers in the field have designed would be totally counter productive it the coolant which has at that stage been significantly warmed could make the hot vapor which enters the condenser  *even hotter*....according to Spencer ...and You still believe this rubbish.

Quacks like Spencer can draw, write and say whatever they want,...it`s called freedom of speech. Engineers don`t have that luxury. They don`t get paid to publish idiotic papers. Engineers have to build the fully functioning REAL DEAL ! ....and for the most they are very good at it.
The first fully functional nuclear weapons were designed and built by engineers, not Einstein or Oppenheimer. When the British got the Okay from the US they sent Klaus Fuchs, that (German) chief engineer of the Manhattan Project to do it for them, not Oppenheimer or Einstein.
When Kennedy wanted to land a man on the moon he called on engineers that almost wound up being convicted & executed as war criminals because of the V1`s and V2`s to do the job.
The REAL world has no use whatsoever for the kind of crap that Roy Spencer and "climate scientists" produce on paper or with ridiculous "climate computer models".
I, sure as hell would not want to be in the same county where they want to build the cooling for a nuclear power plant or in an oil refinery which was designed by Roy Spencer.
You can stay there and watch it if You are so convinced he knows what he is yapping about...not me,...I would not even want to be in the same country that puts a monkey like that in a driver`s seat.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2012)

Here Ian:

Climate Change Dispatch - No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still


----------



## polarbear (Dec 4, 2012)

SSDD said:


> Here Ian:
> 
> Climate Change Dispatch - No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still



Thanks for the assist...but the puck won`t score a goal, because like Roy he calls a "time out" when he`s about to loose the "hockey stick" game..and the goal keeper is out to lunch...permanently.
Then when the ref puts the puck back in the game, Roy and his  the Virginias  want to play mini golf instead which does not go for a full 3 ( climate decade) game periods and overtime but only for as long as it suits them, say a bad 24 hour period for  New Orleans or New York  and the global arena is reduced to a much smaller recent local "severe weather event"....due to "*GLOBAL* warming"  
You should think that IanC would have grasped the concept when I posted how the solar refrigerators work and what limits them when the *rate of cooling is diminished*...as it is when the parabolic mirror looks at a tree, a building or a cloud. Then You can`t cool water to a lower temperature as the IR radiation source the mirror captured.
But Ian still believes Roy that You could boil a cup of water if You point the solar fridge at a tree which radiates a say +10 C Planck frequency profile.
As if the world wide engineering community that is clever enough to build autonomous drones that can take out a target on another continent or land autonomous robot/vehicles that land on Mars would not be clever enough to design a heating system that can heat a house with a colder object like Roy claims. 
So Ian why don`t You save Yourself a lot of money,...never mind solar or wind power...just point a large parabolic mirror towards the outside wall  of Your neighbor`s house facing Your own and enjoy the free "back radiation" heat.
Ian, You wanna know why engineers don`t waste their time with Spencer`s "back radiation photons"...?
Because even a Virginia would have realized that a +100 C hot "black body" is no longer the same dark *black* body that was "dark" speak cold enough before it became hot and when  it could still absorb the photons at the wavelengths which come from a "blacker" (speak colder) body.
The hotter, less dark, less black lesser of a black body it gets the larger the albedo and it begins reflecting everything that is emitted by a colder and still blacker black body..heat flows from hot to cold...and only from cold to hot in people`s minds which are too feeble to understand what a theoretical physics black body is supposed to be to, if You want it to conform to a Planck`s frequency profile.
The only "black body" that exhibits a radiation frequency profile as Planck`s is a mass less cavity with a small enough cavity which limits the radiation that can exit this cavity so that the cavity is at a *thermal  equilibrium state* *!*
It`s no longer a Planck`s radiation profile black body just as soon as You allow it to dissipate radiation which has to have an albedo of 0 as in ZERO !!
A sphere is the exact opposite of a cavity and more so a sphere made from materials that expend absorbed energy by expansion, evaporation, phase changes , like ice melting, photo chemical processes like plant growth. All considered, *even  a sphere with a 30 % "average" albedo* which in itself is *a cheat more than twice as it would take to nullify even Spencer`s crap radiation.
*So don`t even think, that every engineer of our times is dumb enough to go along with an IPCC carbon tax without a fight...
Up till now they confined their activity to debunk quacks like Roy,...
If Roy thinks he had it bad when he was bombarded by some of the engineers that bothered to read his stupid blogs...wait what will happen if Obamama`s nanny state goes lock step with the U.N. and forces everyone, all these engineers included , to pay a Carbon tax...*then You ain`t seen nothin` yet*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2012)

I look forward to the day when the larger scientific community wakes up and clues the charlatans, the true believers, and the luke warmers into how science is actually done.  It is happening as evidenced by the ever increasing numbers of peer reviewed papers opposing the scam in all its variations, but not nearly fast enough to suit me.


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OK polarbear- where does Spencer say extra energy is conjured up. be specific.
> ...



again, you are making strawmen.

the plate has an electric heater inside it. it is not anywhere near maximum temperature, the 10F change in the outside plate temperature would have no impact. and besides, it is a thought experiment designed to show basic principles.

would you be surprised if the plate came to a different equilibrium temperature if the thermos was heated or cooled 50F from the stated 0F? do you really deny that objects lose heat at a different rate depending on the temperature of the surroundings?


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2012)

SSDD said:


> Here Ian:
> 
> Climate Change Dispatch - No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still



Latour's letter goes off the rails right from the beginning.



> His statement This is because the second plate reduced the rate at which the first plate was losing energy. is provably false. And the answer to his subsequent question in parentheses is: no. His statement Again, the reason the heated plate became even hotter is that the second plate has, in effect, insulated the first plate from its cold surroundings, keeping it warmer than if the second plate was not there. is not true.
> 
> If the claim were true, the total surroundings, including cooler plate, would receive more radiation from T difference = 160  150 = 10F and the chiller chamber temperature would increase to T > 0, even if the portion of surroundings blocked by the cool plate gets colder. The rest gets warmer. The chiller would have to remove more heat to maintain 0, but input electrical energy to the 150 plate is constant, so this requires creation of energy. The 100 plate does not insulate the 150 plate from all 0 surroundings.



the increased radiation into the available walls of the thermos from the warmer surfaces exactly matches the decreased radiation into the walls of the thermos that are in 'shadow'.


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2012)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here Ian:
> ...



still making up crazy strawmen, eh?



> But Ian still believes Roy that You could boil a cup of water if You point the solar fridge at a tree which radiates a say +10 C Planck frequency profile.



how exactly am I suppose to have a dialogue with someone who continually puts up nonsense ideas and attributes them to me? are you still pissed that I showed how your solar fridge/oven supported my way of thinking, not yours?

do you really not understand the concept of first principles? if you were around in Newton's time you would have argued against "bodies in motion tend to stay in motion" just because you dont find frictionless examples.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2012)

IanC said:


> [
> Latour's letter goes off the rails right from the beginning.



Really, it doesn't.  In fact, it doesn't go off the rails anywhere, but you believe in the magic so ergo, I guess you have to believe that anything that questions the magic must be off the rails somewhere and "right from the beginning" accomodates that sort of thinking as well as any.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2012)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here Ian:
> ...




SSDD- I pointed out where I thought Latour made his first and most critical mistake and all you say in rebuttal is ' no he didnt'. dont you ever have a thought? an idea that you want to express?


the chiller is a device that is thermostatically controlled with a reservoir of cooled material behind the walls. the incidence of radiation from either the 150F or 160F plate will not make a measurable difference. the chiller represents cold outer space, albeit at a much warmer temperature of zero degrees fahrenheit.


do you and polarbear agree that the heated plate's surface temperature would drop if the chiller was set to a colder setting? and therefore warmer if the chiller was warmer (to a reasonable extent, well below the temperature of the heating coil). if yes, then why do you disagree when the temperature of the chiller is raised in relationship to the heated plate by the second plate which substitutes a portion of the radiating area to 100F instead of 0F?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2012)

IanC said:


> SSDD- I pointed out where I thought Latour made his first and most critical mistake and all you say in rebuttal is ' no he didnt'. dont you ever have a thought? an idea that you want to express?



Here is an idea for you Ian.  You started with a failed mind experiment.  You attempted to defend it and failed.  The further you go into it, the more wrong you get.  But hey, you believe what you want even if there doesn't exist a single shred of actual evidence to support it.  You have been doing exactly that for this long, may as well ride your mistake right to the very end.  Have fun.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD- I pointed out where I thought Latour made his first and most critical mistake and all you say in rebuttal is ' no he didnt'. dont you ever have a thought? an idea that you want to express?
> ...



hahahaha. apparently you have nothing and arent willing to even try. thanks for playing. bye


----------



## polarbear (Dec 6, 2012)

IanC said:


> still making up crazy strawmen, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Tell me Ian, how did the solar fridge support Your believe...I can`t go along with "Your thinking" because You did not think and You are the one who does not understand what`s up and You sure as shit have no idea "*what* I _*would *_have said* if *I* were ..*.". Besides,....when I started going to school the world was way past Newton and well into quantum physics.
It`s You that is still stuck in a pre-Newton believe system and I`m sure that your entire "knowledge" of physics is the kind of crap you dig up from "climate science" blogs....like Roy`s.
If You know what other people *would have *said... *if *they _*were*._..Then tell me what Roy _*would have*_ said*if *he _*were*_ around in Newton's time 

*
But please do tell me....*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

How you managed  to come to *that conclusion if you could *understand what`s going on in a solar fridge* ?*




> *are you still pissed that I showed how your solar fridge/oven supported my way of thinking, not yours?*


*Or how You concluded that I`m "pissed off"...? Why should I be pissed off ?
*
If I were "Vriginia`s" or Your daddy and would have to pay the bill for all the "extra special" tutoring it would take to get you past a simple high school exam, t*hen I`ld be pissed off 

*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

*
Hey polarbear, if you'd like to see a cooler object make a warmer object even warmer, stick a frog in a microwave and press start.

*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So according to the kooks, the last century of physics is all completely wrong.
> ...




Classical physics isn't sufficient to describe atmospheric processes. You need something called "quantum physics". Things like absorption cross sections are fundamentally quantum phenomena and cannot be described by classical physics.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Hey polarbear, if you'd like to see a cooler object make a warmer object even warmer, stick a frog in a microwave and press start.


I would not know how to "put" a frog into a "microwave" or any other wave for that matter.  
 But while a frog is watching, sticking a colder than you  cattle prod up your ass  which is plugged in where you plug in your *microwave oven *where you fry frogs...that would make You look  a lot like your avatar...which looks dumber than any frog you stuck in your  micro wave oven. 





That "doo pah poo" coming out of your mouth is that "African American culture" pigeon English talk for shit or just plain ape culture?
It`s no wonder stupidity has gone rampant because people* like You* who use micro wave ovens to get their jollies torturing frogs do not wind up where they should,.. in *these ovens*







By the way do You know what the frog answered to the vet when he was asked what that thing which looked exactly like you came to be  on the frog`s ass:





The frog answered: "I don`t know it started out as a smaller wart on my ass"


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2012)

IanC said:


> hahahaha. apparently you have nothing and arent willing to even try. thanks for playing. bye



It is you who are playing Ian, but it's interesting to watch.  Roy's experiment failed miserably and was torn to little pieces by people who know a hell of a lot more on the topic than I do.  It is interesting to see someone attempt to defend something that has already completely failed....going off on this tangent or that tangent not getting that every tangent that leads off the basic failure is also going to be a failure.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Classical physics isn't sufficient to describe atmospheric processes. You need something called "quantum physics". Things like absorption cross sections are fundamentally quantum phenomena and cannot be described by classical physics.



As far as the climate scam goes, we are still just talking about energy transfer and you don't need quantum physics to describe energy transfer.  I get that you have to "try" to go somewhere else in an attempt to support the scam, but only the truely deluded are buying.


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > still making up crazy strawmen, eh?
> ...



wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about the solar oven/fridge. did you even read my comment to you about it? here-



> polarbear's experiment-
> 
> Quote:
> A solar oven is designed to capture solar energy to heat something to a higher temperature than the surrounding air. You put an object in a mirrored box with a glass lid. Radiation comes in, reflects, and strikes the object in the box, warming it up. Basically, the object sees more light from the sun than it otherwise would.
> ...




I have a distinct feeling that you are ignoring what I say and are only reacting to what you think I am saying.

let's try to straighten things out. I dont particularly like Trenberth's energy budget, because it doesnt make daytime/nighttime into separate categories, and because it is confusing for most people to see (large) radiation numbers going in both directions for IR. in daytime I dont think much surface IR gets out (and maybe some of the sun's IR gets in). nighttime is when the IR gets out, and probably mostly by thermalized radiation that goes through the open windows. I dont really know this part for a fact but it makes sense to me and I always go by what _I_ think until I am shown pertinent information with which to adjust my worldview. Trenberth says an average of 396W up, 333W down for a net 63W up for radiation (latent heat and convection are different categories). if you want to say there is only a net upward component that is fine with me. but CO2 still affects the ability of IR to escape ( or enter in the daytime).

back to spencer's thought experiment. thought experiments strip things down to core principles, like high school physics cannonball problems that ignore friction. spencer's heated plate is like that. the heating  coil is like a point source with only one dimension, length. the surface area of the coil is << than the surface area of the plate and thus can be safely ignored. at equilibrium the output radiated from the plate's surface will exactly equal the input from the heater, although in a more disordered form and at lower frequencies. the container for the thought experiment is cooled with a large enough reservoir that the small amount of radiation it recieves from the heated plate has no discernable effect, and the plate and the walls are materials that have emissivity approaching unity.

now let's just run the experiment backwards because you seem to have a problem with directionality. the heated and unheated plate have been allowed to come to equilibrium and the side facing the container wall is 160F. if we take away the unheated plate, what will happen to the temperature of the heated plate? surely you dont think it can do anything but go down? it now has additional exposure to a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat. just like taking off the lens cap off of your telescope.

and just to be sure we are straight- the electric heater is heating the plate, and the sun is heating the earth. the unheated plate and GHGs only alter the equilibrium temperature at a point in the energy flow path that we have chosen to measure.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2012)

It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures.  That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens.  No matter how you twist it, turn it, slice it, or dice it, you are talking about a perpetual motion machine.  Dress it up however you like, but you are still just putting lipstick on a pig.


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. apparently you have nothing and arent willing to even try. thanks for playing. bye
> ...



are you still here? I see you still havent come up with anything substantive to say. why dont you try defending Latour in the spot that I said he was wrong? do you really think the wall will change temperature because of the piddling radiation from the plate? and why do you believe his unsubstantiated declaration that more energy was going into the walls with partial access at 160F compared to total access at 150F? 

go for it! I am a reasonable man. convince me and I will thank you for it.

if it is a mathematical proof, dont forget to convert to Kelvin! hahahaha.


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures.  That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens.  No matter how you twist it, turn it, slice it, or dice it, you are talking about a perpetual motion machine.  Dress it up however you like, but you are still just putting lipstick on a pig.





> Radiative heat transfer
> The radiative heat transfer from one surface to another is equal to the radiation entering the first surface from the other, minus the radiation leaving the first surface.



not actually the formula I was looking for but you get the idea.


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures.  That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens.  No matter how you twist it, turn it, slice it, or dice it, you are talking about a perpetual motion machine.  Dress it up however you like, but you are still just putting lipstick on a pig.



hahahahaha. I can't quite remember.............have I ever asked you to explain where the radiation goes if the bodies are the same temperature? or where the radiation from the cooler body goes if there is a difference in temperature? 

oh yes, I _have _asked you on many occasions but you alway ignore it. care to answer this time? hahahahaha


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2012)

come on SSDD! at least _try_

hell, I would give you full marks for Claes Johnson's 'harmonic reflection'. it gives exactly the same answer as regular physics but gives you a chance to save face by saying the radiation bounces back and forth with neither body accepting or giving up more radiation until there is a temperature differential.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Hey polarbear, if you'd like to see a cooler object make a warmer object even warmer, stick a frog in a microwave and press start.
> ...






Its pidgin English, not pigeon.


Cattle prods word by direct contact.
Microwave ovens work through radiation.
Which, in the case of our hapless frog, travels from a cold object, to a warmer object, and causes it to get warmer. Thus being an example of a cold object making a warmer object warmer.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Classical physics isn't sufficient to describe atmospheric processes. You need something called "quantum physics". Things like absorption cross sections are fundamentally quantum phenomena and cannot be described by classical physics.
> ...



No, actually, as I just pointed out, quantum physics is needed to describe the very absorption processes that make global warming happen.


I'm not sure how the use of quantum physics to describe something classical physics cannot fully account for "supports a scam".


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> It is never going to work for you Ian because you "believe" in two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures.  That simply does not happen and there isn't a single bit of actual experimental evidence to prove that it happens.




Two way energy transfer between objects happens any time photons are flowing both ways between two objects.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> No, actually, as I just pointed out, quantum physics is needed to describe the very absorption processes that make global warming happen.



There is no warming and hasn't been for nearly 2 decades now while CO2 continues to rise.  CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Two way energy transfer between objects happens any time photons are flowing both ways between two objects.



Ao you say.  And what is the basis for that claim?  Mathematical models?  Computer simulations?  Can you even prove the existence of a photon for that matter?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > No, actually, as I just pointed out, quantum physics is needed to describe the very absorption processes that make global warming happen.
> ...



Regardless, quantum physics is necessary to describe absorption processes.



> CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.



What does that even mean?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 6, 2012)

IanC said:


> Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube
> 
> 
> wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.
> ...



Okay then let`s try to "straighten things out"...AGAIN...but every time I do either Poop mouth starts mouthing off having a direct contact "*word coming out of a cattle prod*"


> Cattle prods word by direct contact


Or insisting I should talk the same street-lingo he and his "bros" talk in the Chicago East end:


> Its pidgin English, not pigeon.


 And  throw frogs into micro wave ovens...well it`s not quite as bad as what his cousins in Africa still enjoy doing,  where they get their jollies watching people die wearing a burning tire necklace 


> Which, in the case of our hapless frog, travels from a cold object, to a  warmer object, and causes it to get warmer. Thus being an example of a  cold object making a warmer object warmer.


First he manages to modulate microwaves with a frog and puts frogs instead of a signal into a "microwave" and then goes on to claim that a 1000 Watt magnetron is a "cooler radiation" source, than a cold blooded frog..contradicting every equation that has ever been written about frequency specific EM energy.  Even if that were so and we are ignoring that and just talk about the heat as in temperature a magnetron generates...which is wasted and not the energy used for cooking, any micro wave magnetron would  would go up in smoke if you don`t cool it with forced air.
I remember a post this foul mouthed dim-wit wrote...which he deleted...where he claimed he is  a "physicist"...and spelled it "phyisist"


Before that You changed the subject from what`s being discussed here from radiative transfer to "what _*I would have*_ said about Newton`s law, *if I were* "...or had been around Newton`s time .

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you _*should*_  be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when *v=c*.

After You repeatedly changed the subject which is something you always do when you get stuck in your own crap, you try to high school debate your way out of it with *"directionality"*


> thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said
> you seem to have a problem with directionality.
> surely you dont think* it can do anything but go  down*? it now has *additional exposure to a cold surface *into which it can  radiate away heat. just like *taking off the lens cap off of your  telescope.*


_Neither I nor photons have a "problem with directionality". Heat radiation has a *"directionality" from hot to cold*_
It`s Roy, Virgina and you that have a problem with "directionality"


Tell me where You did see an additional _*exposure*_ "to a cold surface" in that video ?
Exposure is as* ambiguous as it can possibly get*...what kind of exposure...? Direct exposure, as in contact ?
You sound just like your idiot Virginia mentor Roy:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07...ts-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/


> Roy W. Spencer,  says:
> All I said was that the presence of a cooler object can make a warmer  object warmer still.  *I was being deliberately ambiguous *to point out  that when ..
> Roy W. Spencer, says:
> *I purposely phrased the title in a somewhat ambiguous* manner  because those how say the opposite (who disagree with me) do the same  thing.


"Exposure" to a cold surface would be, if you sit butt naked in the snow or go skiing in the nude.




It`s not as if I stuck the thermistor or the clear plastic cover of that Telescope against a cold window pane. The front of the telescope  was more than 12 inches away from any cold surface.
Also,  You don`t seem to know what`s inside a reflector telescope and how it works...
Because between the window, that You claim was the *cold surface* that cooled down the *"exposed"* thermistor which was behind a clear plastic wrap  there is a second mirror...and the focal point where the thermistor was is *BEHIND *that mirror not in front of the "exposed" thermistor. This "exposed" thermistor  in that telescope was *shielded *  even more than Spencer`s "hot plate" is "shielded" with the colder bar that is supposed to heat the heated bar even more.
*So go on and specify the "exposure to a cold surface"  you are talking about...**of that thermistor in that telescope*


> *wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.
> 
> thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about....hahahaha.*


_*How much more twisted out of shape can You get...?*_




> *a cold surface *into which it can  radiate away heat. just like *taking off the lens cap off of your  telescope.*


That`s the whole point...Spencer claims that a cold object can radiate heat to a warmer object...
I always said and showed you that it can`t...and that it`s the other way around, not like Roy would have it, the warmer object radiates heat to a colder object...that`s the DIRECTIONALITY...and even your latest gibberish  conforms to this "directionality"


> *a cold surface *into which it can  radiate away heat


That`s what everybody has been trying to tell you, that a warm object radiates heat to a cold object...not the other way around...
Except now you want to twist the "*object*" into a "*cold surface*"...as in *surface contact* by being ambiguous *what kind of* "_*exposure*_" you are yapping about in your latest version.



but as you *still can`t see* even  if it`s done right in front of You instead just on a silly drawing, that is just not happening. By the way all my windows are not "cold", they are double pane . We run a humidifier during the winter and if these windows were "cold" You would have to wipe off the condensation every few minutes when it`s cold outside. So what was the "additional cold *surface*" the thermistor was *"exposed *to" other than the trees, houses and so on that the telescope was looking at. The only avenue the out-going heat energy had was heat radiation...*radiating the heat faster to the colder objects* than the *constant heat supply *from the heated air in my house to the Telescope & Thermistor could warm it.

You are not only ignorant, you are also a liar, because even the ignorant Virginia knew that her Daddy Roy`s claim to fame is that cold objects *add *to the heat energy of a heated object by "back-radiating" from* cold to hot*...which you have defended only a few postings ago and now you are lying and pretend that you held the position that it`s from hot to cold, which is no matter how you want to phrase and re-phrase it the exact opposite of what Roy claims and you did in a shit load of your other posts.

So tell me again how the fact that a thermistor which is in a metallic (black to boot) metal tube which is constantly being heated by the warm ambient air in my house, like all the other objects inside my house.....cooled down this thermistor below room temperature when a 6 inch mirror captures nothing else but the "back radiation" from cooler objects instead of warming it even more....*how *exactly is that all over sudden *something that you say you said all along*,...*while you put out a whole ton of posts where you said that Spencer* (who tells fairy tales with nothing more than a silly sketch)... *was right*... before I showed you with this telescope *that he is not.*...none of the colder objects, colder than the thermistor inside a telescope that is constantly warmed from the outside warmed up this thermistor,....it cooled down because heat not only flows by conduction from *hot to cold*, but *does so *with radiative heat transfer also...
No matter how Spencer or all the "climate science"  Virginias twist an turn words or who said what.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you _*should*_  be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when *v=c*.




E_kinetic = 0.5* m*v^2 is the classical formula. 

E = M c^2 includes both kinetic and rest mass energy. M = gamma * m where m is the rest mass of the particle and gamma = 1.0 / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2/c^2).

In the units where c = 1, 

E = m / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2 )

In the limit that v << 1, 

E =(approx)= m * (1.0 + 0.5 * v^2) = m + 0.5 * m *v^2. The first term is the rest energy, and if you subtract it the kinetic energy is what's left, E_kinetic = E - E_rest = 0.5 * m * v^2.

So we see Einstein's equation goes to the NEwtonian in the limit that v is much less than c.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you _*should*_  be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when *v=c*.
> ...



It took you that long to look that up at wikipedia...?
besides I never asked you...!
While you are here explain then why you deleted that posting  so quickly where you claimed to be a "phyi*s*isist" and knew about "worm holes" when you shot your mouth off about "causality" in connection with the Twinkie bankruptcy and you ridiculed conservatives claiming they have said that the Twinkie bankruptcy was "caused by a baker`s strike that happened 6 months later"....You know the one where you posted a picture of a time machine and a wormhole picture from Wikipedia.
You are no different from all these New York loudmouths that can`t smart mouth any more just as soon as the power is down and they can`t google wikipedia ....I`m willing to bet that`s all *you* "know"


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 6, 2012)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




I am a physicist.


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube
> ...



I see you are still clutching desparately to strawmen. you say so many non-factual things mixed in with your _ad homs_ that it is hard to get to them all, especially because you like to mix things all together and your writing style is akin to diarrhea. big gushes with little of substance in there, and it is noxious to wade through it looking.

you said-


> You are not only ignorant, you are also a liar, because even the ignorant Virginia knew that her Daddy Roy`s claim to fame is that cold objects *add *to the heat energy of a heated object by "back-radiating" from* cold to hot*...which you have defended only a few postings ago and now you are lying and pretend that you held the position that it`s from hot to cold, which is no matter how you want to phrase and re-phrase it the exact opposite of what Roy claims and you did in a shit load of your other posts.



in one short paragraph you have managed to call me a liar twice, insulted a world renowned climate physicist, and for some obscure reason, his daughter as well. I can see why you live in an isolated northern town where perhaps civility is not quite as valued or expected as in other places. you have also accused Spencer and myself of stating things we have not said, even though both of us have repeatedly made efforts to explain more clearly to reduce your confusion. you obviously prefer to not listen. it is very similar to how the extreme warmists refuse to listen to any evidence that does not support their position.

you said-


> So tell me again how the fact that a thermistor which is in a metallic (black to boot) metal tube which is constantly being heated by the warm ambient air in my house, like all the other objects inside my house.....cooled down this thermistor below room temperature when a 6 inch mirror captures nothing else but the "back radiation" from cooler objects instead of warming it even more



it works just like your other example, the solar oven/fridge. a significant portion of the thermistor radiation is focused at the window which is cooler than the room. surely you are not pretending that your windows are the same temperature as the ambient air or interior objects? energy transfer is by the usual (constant)x(T1^4 - T2^4). aim your telescope at the fireplace. will you be surprised to find the thermistor increases temperature?

you said-


> Also,  You don`t seem to know what`s inside a reflector telescope and how it works...



why do you make such churlish insults for no reason?



I am interested in your view on radiative energy transfer. do you agree with standard science that the radiation goes in both directions, and that net energy always goes from warmer to cooler. or do you subscribe to SSDD and his Maxwell's Daemon who counts up everything in the universe before allowing radiation to happen. or perhaps wirebender's cancelling 'EM fields' where the energy just disappears is more to your style. this is a serious question: two objects at the same temperature, close together but not touching, do their near faces radiate into each other or not? if not, then what happened to the radiation?


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2012)

polarbear said-


> Before that You changed the subject from what`s being discussed here from radiative transfer to "what I would have said about Newton`s law, if I were "...or had been around Newton`s time .
> 
> Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.



I missed this little one lodged in your tirade against the troll. I didnt actually bring this up, I said something to the effect of 'bodies in motion tend to stay in motion unless some force acts upon them'. 

anyways your question is in your usual style of switching around one thing for another when they mean something else out of context. Lewis Carroll was an excellent mathematician and he loved to devise problems with inadvertent division by zero....and leap years of course.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 7, 2012)

IanC said:


> Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube
> 
> 
> wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.
> ...




It`s You who is clutching the straw man.Where exactly did I say that radiation *does not go in all directions* ?
What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does *NOT INCREASE *the temperature of a warmer object. Spencer the "world renowned scientist" says it does and has nothing to show for except his electric hot plate drawing and his say so. So after that straw man went up in smoke you use a new one...my window and "exposed"..
If You insist it was my window, which is way warmer than the objects outside which my telescope was looking at, that does not make a real man  of your newer straw man, because the "Spencer effect" should have materialized with an object that is not as cold as the objects outside even more. If you insist I`ll tape a thermometer to my widow and show you that it is the same temperature as the wall next to it. In Canada they sell windows that have almost the same R-factor as a standard wall .
If I had done that demo with an open window what else could be expected than an even better cooling rate for that thermistor...had I done that then your next straw man would be the cold air that came in.
I have told you from the start, that the only thing that any other object which is less war can only *DIMINISH THE RATE OF COOLING*...but it can`t *WARM a WARMER object*...be that by radiative heat transfer or by heat conduction..and if you understand physics as you claim you do, then you should know what the difference between warming and less cooling is.

You being such a "radiation expert" should also have realized from the start that your "world renowned scientist" and all his disciples use diffuse light as if all of it were parallel light rays.
Any light that is "absorbed" by CO2 is DISPERSED in all directions which makes it *diffuse* light...your "climate science" not only claims that this radiation from a cooler source WARMS UP (as in INCREASES T ) but claims in addition, that 50% of the rays going in all directions will eventually have a down direction..and then go on to milk the same effect from a light which is even *more diffuse* than what CO2 re-emitted the _*same *_"back radiation *heating*" effect as a light ray with a *90 deg angle* of incidence...
It works with people like you, because by then your mental capacity is exceeded, there was no more room  and the fact has been dropped that the *(albedo)  reflected / absorbed light  of ANY OBJECT* (other than a perfect black body)*dramatically increases as this angle deviates from 90 degrees* ....eventually to a point where 7/10 of the *REAL EARTH* surface which is water has almost the same reflectivity as a mirror

You`ld never have a snowballs chance in hell playing a game of chess if you can only keep track of one piece instead of *all the pieces* on the chess board.
Don`t expect to win a game of chess against somebody who can,  if *all you know* is checkers where all the pieces move the same


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 7, 2012)

polarbear said:


> What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does *NOT INCREASE *the temperature of a warmer object.



Yes it can. Any time radiation is absorbed by matter the matter gains energy.




> You being such a "radiation expert" should also have realized from the start that your "world renowned scientist" and all his disciples use diffuse light as if all of it were parallel light rays.



I don't think they do that. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.


You seem to be claiming the global warming mechanism cannot work. If it didn't you'd be freezing to death right now. Do you understand that?


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2012)

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and shit happens.

The immutable laws of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> > CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean?



You claim to be a physicist.  That shoud be an easy one for a physicist.  Ever hear of the ideal gas laws?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 7, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > > CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.
> ...



Ever heard of explaining what you're talking about? Give it a try. You aren't making sense. "Ever heard of the ideal gas laws?" isn't an explanation of anything.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



 You are nothing but a loudmouth heckler and do the same thing what you are doing here in all the other threads,...24/7 !! If you were a physicist you would not have the time for that. I`m still willing to bet that you would seize to be a  physicist at the exact time with split second precision when the power is out and you can`t Google


----------



## polarbear (Dec 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



 If you were a physicist then he should not have to explain it to you what he meant after he reminded you already that any gas CO2 included wants to expand if you heat it up. You claim to be a physicist and it`s news to you that gasses do that ??? So why don`t you Google the ideal gas law then copy and paste what happens to an ideal gas when you let it expand...hint...: Stick your frog into a fridge instead of a micro wave oven


----------



## polarbear (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does *NOT INCREASE *the temperature of a warmer object.
> ...



*GAIN ENERGY* Any time ? Really ?
Even if this radiation is just a fraction of it`s *own*  radiation "echo" ?
As in...:
Plate A radiates a portion (x) of it`s heat to Plate B which "echoes" back a FRACTION of (x) to A and *now A GAINED energy*...???
You claim to be a physicist and fail to comprehend that you just described the radiation version of a perpetual motion energy generator.


> You seem to be claiming the *global warming mechanism* cannot work. If it didn't you'd be freezing to death right now. Do you understand that?


You`ld be freezing to death after the sun goes down  *if there were no water vapor *in the atmosphere, *do you understand that* *?*


I would not freeze if all the CO2 in the atmosphere would have vanished, but we would all be starving. No plant- or any other life as we know it would exist either

 But you would be *cooking like your frog *in your microwave oven when the sun is up...*if there were no water vapor *in the atmosphere, *do you understand that* *?*
_*you don't know what you're talking about.*_
According to your Googled "climate science", what you call physics, you should be cooking under a cloud from all the extra radiation energy you would *gain **. .*and cool off in the desert sun where you don`t *gain *any Spencer energy from overcast,.... or *would* if you`ld wear a hat or stand under a sun umbrella that cooks your brains with all the Spencer extra energy You *gain* from the umbrella.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube
> ...



I see you are finally coming around to my way of thinking.  I really can't understand why you have vehemently disagreed with the perfectly logical things that I have said while staying silent and ignoring the obvious fallacies that wirebender and SSDD proclaimed to be true.

let us do a little recap.

I said CO2 can absorb certain frequencies of IR. that energy can be either re-emitted at the same frequency but in a random direction, or in the case of an excited CO2 molecule having a collision with another molecule then the photon or photons emitted can be a random frequency emitted in a random direction but typically the frequency will less energetic according to SLoT. in response you implied that I was an idiot.

wirebender agreed that CO2 emitted radiation, sometimes towards the surface, but that none of that radiation actually reached the earth because it was cancelled out at some unknown position by some unknown process, and without the need for matter to be present. the photons and their energy just 'disappeared'. in response to this you said nothing.

SSDD says that CO2 cannot emit radiation towards the surface because the SLoT forbids _any_ movement of energy from cold to hot, not even a photon. he gives no mechanism for this amazing control of every atom in the universe, nor the knowledge of the temperature of every object, both in the present and in the future, when the photons are emitted and absorbed. again, you say nothing. allowing people to infer your approval because you fight so hard for 'correctness', at least against some.

then Spencer's thought experiment comes along. Spencer devised it to show people that screamed "2nd Law!!!" that there were many examples of how disturbing the equilibrium of energy flow through a system can result in increased temperature at a certain measured location by the inclusion of a colder body. Spencer's experiment can run both ways. not only can adding a cool body make a warm body warmer but if you then take away the now warmed second plate it makes the heated plate cooler. Latour's hodgepodge letter brought in all sorts of conduction and convection red herrings into what was supposed to be an analysis of radiation. Latour even messed up his blanket example by saying that insulation doesnt warm up the skin, it just makes shivering unneccessary! obviously if the human body was still producing the extra heat from shivering the skin would be warmer. have you ever started to sweat on a cold day while doing exercise in a big coat?   again, you treated Latour like the word of God while slandering Spencer with your interpretation of what he said.

Bernie- I agree with many of your points about how real world conditions diminish the effect of CO2. I am a skeptic concerning CO2 and I have said that it makes little difference theoretically, and much less practically. what I am not willing to do is ignore that CO2 _does have a theoretical impact on the climate_ if all other variables were kept the same. when the extreme side of the skeptical position dismiss CO2 altogether it makes moderate warmers ignore everything else that skeptics say because they started with a lie.

oh...and just think about how annoyed you were when I put words into your mouth about Newton's Law. you have been doing the same thing to me for months. I keep asking you to respond to what I have actually said, and you keep making up strawmen and attributing them to me.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


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




Yes, he should. If he doesn't want to explain his ideas he should shut up.




> So why don`t you Google the ideal gas law then copy and paste what happens to an ideal gas when you let it expand...hint...:



I could do that - a million times over - and it still wouldn't explain his comment "CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere."


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Yes. Any time a photon is absorbed by matter the matter gains energy. Any time it is emitted by matter the matter loses energy. This is called "conservation of energy". 



> Even if this radiation is just a fraction of it`s *own*  radiation "echo" ?
> As in...:
> Plate A radiates a portion (x) of it`s heat to Plate B which "echoes" back a FRACTION of (x) to A and *now A GAINED energy*...???
> You claim to be a physicist and fail to comprehend that you just described the radiation version of a perpetual motion energy generator.



Its not a perpetual motion machine. In the absence of an energy source both plates will eventually cool to absolute zero. When radiation from A hits B, it can be reflected back immediately, in which case B never absorbs it - or B can absorb it and then re-emit it later.

Its pretty simple. In the absence of other energy sources:

electromagnetic energy + heat energy + work = constant.

Do you understand?



> I would not freeze if all the CO2 in the atmosphere would have vanished,



The average temperature of the Earth would be a about 5 degrees C if there were no greenhouse effect. So you're right, you wouldn't freeze - on average.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



again with the perpetual motion machine strawman. at any one instant, there is _x_ amount of radiation going one direction and _y_ amount going in the opposite direction.  the net flow is _x-y_. just because we choose to pick one side to measure and label first, that doesnt mean it is not happening continuously and in both directions at the same time.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does *NOT INCREASE *the temperature of a warmer object.
> ...



you guys are arguing over different things. energy and temperature are not interchangeable. 

and measurement bias. if the object has absorbed one unit of energy while simultaneously emitted two units of energy, it is incorrect to say it has gained one unit _or_ lost two units. it has had a net loss of one unit.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



If the absorbed energy is thermalized and the matter is ordinary its temperature will also go up.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 8, 2012)

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



 are you arguing about the temperature of a single particle of matter? that makes no sense. temperature is the average of many molecules or atoms. some higher, some lower.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.



one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.
> ...



Conduction, convection, and radiation.

It is the first chapter.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



true, but this thread _is_ about radiation.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.



No it isn't. There are many first year courses which teach aspects of thermodynamics - but thermodynamics or statistical mechanics as a course all into itself is not generally taught in the first year.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No. I thought that would have been implied by the term 'thermalized'.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...




At the university level?
Of which thermodynamics text?

Convection is a complex problem that requires not only an understanding of thermodynamics but an understanding of hydrodynamics as well. I don't think I can recall a thermo text that covers it in the first chapter except perhaps by way of mentioning it in introductory fashion.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



as always, terminology gets in the way of many discussions. in climatology the term thermalization is often used to separate the two ways of losing energy by radiation. eg. CO2 has specific wavelengths it likes to absorb and emit. when an excited molecule collides with another molecule that energy gets added to the total and photon(s) are emitted that can be different from the normal spectra.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.
> ...



*No matter even freshmen should have noticed the Spencer cheats*

First we have to make some common sense assumptions to fill the information vacuum which was in Roy`s brain when he cooked up his "Yes Virginia" scheme. So we have to assign some specifics. Spencer does not specify the mass and  thermal properties of his 2 plates. Neither does he specify the distance between the 2. Most indicative is the cheat when Roy leaves out the most important dimension, namely the elapsed time from this scheme. The only way he refers to elapsed time is "eventually" while he is heating objects with an electric heater. Roy does not assign any power rating to this heater either but promises that it will remain at a constant power setting during his dopy anecdote.

To sum it up, Roy wants to make it as impossible as he possibly could for any engineers to fact check his outlandish hypothesis.
No matter, because the laws of physics apply to any mass and material that Roy could have possibly chosen
To make it  easier for ourselves, but far from as easy as Roy has made it for himself we assign 1000 Watts to his active heater,  a 1000 gram mass for both the active and the passive plate and a thermal property of  1 cal per gram degree for both. In order not to generate a whole lot of least significant decimal places we round up a 0.05 and > to 0.1 and down if   if it`s < 0.05.


So let`s proceed and   assign 20 deg C room temp for the second object as an initial temp that Roy sticks into his brain chamber....assuming it came from a real room and not from Roy`s vacuum brain chamber
Roy has it warming up to 37.8 C  in the test chamber, but does not say how long that takes, all he says "eventually it will".
assigning the thermal properties and mass we chose  for this object it takes ...
17.8 * 1000 *4.18400 ~74391.5 watt seconds to do that, even if  we assign a 1000 watt component to the radiative heat transfer rate that step would take at least 74 seconds.
Then Roy also has both objects hotter, one the active object  by 5.5 C from 65.6 to 71.1 C
that takes 158 063 watt seconds and the cooler passive plate staying stabilized at 100 F (37.8 C)  while it is being radiated by the active plate which is now at 160 F ( 71.1 C)
All the while both objects can also radiate to the cooled enclosure wall which is at 0 F ( -17.8ºC)
When I showed with that video what happens if the coldest object the thermistor could irradiate  it was only ~ - 3.5 C outside

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

Already the constant heat supply from the ambient room could no longer keep up with the thermistor`s radiative heat transfer at the increased rate of cooling that resulted when the cooler object is ~ 24 C cooler than the warmer one. 
*IanC insists the cooler object was my window and not anything outside*...in that case the "cold object" with a window pane that has a R40 rating the best I could grant him then would be no more than *just 2 C cooler *instead of *24 C cooler*

Maybe I should redo that demo when it`s - 15 C  or more outside as Roy has his "cooled chamber walls". Hey I`ll even blow an exact and constant supply of air at a precise temperature into the telescope tube, clock the time and I`m 100 % certain that it will take EXACTLY the same amount of extra ( as in additional)  watt secs to hold the thermistor Ohms constant as the radiative cooling is increasing with a second much cooler  object.
But there are a lot of people that have a lot more time than I have to try it out for themselves.
Right now I only have enough time to fact check what`s happening in Roy`s vacuum brain chamber...:

Which is now at the point of time Roy only refers to as "eventually" ...where he has his passive plate at 100 F and the active one at 160 F, up by an *entirely arbitrarily chosen *( *by him!!!*) 10 F from 150.
The additional  energy in the passive plate (74391.52 watt seconds) can only come from the first object which Roy has "eventually" at  160 F (65.6ºC) and at best at 1/2 the rate (500 watts) what the active plate radiates in that direction.
The elapsed time  Roy only mentions as "eventually" would then be   ~ 150 seconds.
After 150 seconds the sum of all energy in Roy`s chamber  is  already at 158 063  +  74392 =   232 455 watt seconds  





Roy only feeds a constant 1000 watts into his vacuum brain chamber and  manages to heat 2 unspecified objects at a rate of ~1500 watts during the time frame he specifies as "eventually"

Intentionally not specifying the time beyond the ambiguos term "eventually" Roy hopes he can hide behind it from fact checking engineers with sharp pencils with a Teflon Don rhetoric argument that 1000 watts for 150 seconds = 150 000 watt seconds is still only 1000 Watts ...hoping nobody would notice *that he milked his "constant " 1000 W electric hot plate in fact for  232 455 watt seconds during these 150 seconds.....which makes it more than 1500 Watts*


If this Spencer energy occurs only during this time 150 second time frame after the cooler passive plate was inserted all Spencer has to do is change his Spencer energy "fuel rod" and replace the passive bar when it got to 100 F with a new one which is at room temperature.


All he has to do now is add a simple  generator to his drawings, specify that the reactor chamber must be a "Yes Virginia" brain box and submit it to the patent office where it has to wait with all the other perpetual motion power generators for a patent examiner that is as dumb Spencer`s Virginia to grant a a patent. If Al Gore can win a Nobel prize this would be as easy as cooking your hapless frogs in Your micro wave oven.
With all this left wing "equal employment opportunity quota" legislation he may just get  his wish .







So go ahead and apply...if  you resemble your avatar You are assured to graduate as some sort of "physicist" and get the job while Obama is president


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...






its still just a though experiment Bernie.

it doesnt matter how long it takes to charge the heat sink of the second plate. we wait until it comes to equilibrium. if you want to bitch about things, bitch about the right ones.

the illustration is massively simplified, that is the point of thought experiments. the heated plate will have an energy flow gradient between the side facing out and the side facing the other plate. the unheated plate will have an even larger temperature gradient across it between the side heated from the first plate and the side facing the cool wall. so what? as always the first and second laws will find the most efficient way to distribute the energy from the heater so that conduction and radiation will dissipate the energy. the emissivity of the materials that make up the plates and the wall may make some difference to the equilibrium points but the basic statements are undeniable. the original internally heated plate will have one equilibrium temperature when it radiates directly into the cold container. input equals output.

when the second plate is put next to it, the energy flow will change as the second plate becomes warmer and affects the k(T1^4 - T2^4) relationship. at some point the second plate will reach equilibrium where the absorbed radiation is balanced by the loss to the cooled wall. at that time the first plate will also be at equilibrium but at a higher temperature than originally. energy in equals energy out. 

months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well, except the second plate was considerably colder on the side which faces the wall, which we would expect because it is externally heated and the material would slow the energy flow.

you can moan all you want about there not being exact numbers but the thought experiment is about first principles. your putting a time limit on the time to reach equilibrium is just as stupid as wirebender saying that both plates would be the same temperature at equilibrium even though one is heated and the other is not.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Yes, he should. If he doesn't want to explain his ideas he should shut up.



For a physicist, you seem very uninformed.  Refer to Nikolov and Zeller's unified theory of climate.  Unlike the hypothesis you cling to which doesn't even come close to predicting the temperature of other bodies in the solar system with atmosphere's, N&Z's theory, when applied to every other body in the solar system with an atmosphere is damned near dead on in its temperature prediction.

The greenhouse theory only predicts the temperature here because it is an ad hoc construct designed to do just that and requires constant tweaking just to keep up.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.



You are making a lot of unproven assumptions there Ian.  Can you prove that electrons flow in two directions along a wire with the net being in the strongest direction?  Can you prove that radiation flows in both directions at once, and can you prove the existence of photons?

I am talking actual proof, not a questionable mathematical model or computer simulation...actual proof.  If you can't, and we both know neither you, nor anyone else can prove those things, why do you talk about them as if they were facts rather than assumptions?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> its still just a though experiment Bernie.
> 
> it doesnt matter how long it takes to charge the heat sink of the second plate. we wait until it comes to equilibrium. if you want to bitch about things, bitch about the right ones.
> 
> ...



I`m glad You stepped up and want to begin thinking outside the Virginia brain box. But drop the rhetoric "bitching", "moaning" that a typical Virginia resorts to when the scam is exposed.
Have you ever given it any thought how much damage Spencer`s phony "science" propaganda, this "thought experiment" has caused and continues to do so..????
It has been as damaging to the economy in some countries if not more than this kind of pyramid scheme accounting:






that winds up with 11 fingers at the bottom line....in case my "gif" does not show up animated...You count from finger #10 backwards till at finger #6 all Fingers on one hand have been assigned a number and then add the 5 Fingers from the other hand.

If You really want to start discussing the real world physics which are involved outside Spencer`s or Virginia`s vacuum brain box, then do it with all the chess pieces that come into play...
1.) How much energy has been stripped from the incoming sunlight by upper atmosphere CO2 compared to the energy a 30 -35 % albedo body can actually produce at that wavelength
2.) The REAL albedo
3.) How much more of the radiation is at an angle beyond which the % reflected radiation is way higher than the "average albedo" used by AGW after all the energy CO2 did absorbed is re-emitted in all possible directions as diffused light
4.) Refrain from "lawyering" an increased rate of warming out of a  process that actually increased the rate of cooling
5.) Make a distinction between any instrument that measures IR by photometry,...as with a photomultiplier or a "LSD" (light sensitive diode) or any other device that registers radiation intensity and not the actual temperature at the locality where the instrument has been placed.

They can only be calibrated for the temperature of a body they are "looking at"....not tell you by how much the temperature of a colder object would increase with this radiation at the locality where You placed this optical sensor.

To get the temperature at the locality where you want to measure the ACTUAL temperature...as opposed to an apparent temperature the way an optical sensor would,... you have to use a direct temperature measuring device,...like a thermistor or a thermometer that actually converts absorbed radiation into the dimension that you want to report.
For that you need a mass that actually did absorb this radiation and caused an actual increase in  temperature.

You can let yourself be irradiated all day long next door to a 150 kw radio wave transmitter  measure the field strength where you are...but none of that energy is converted into "Hitze" raising the temperature. To do that you need a resonator like a resistor shunted coil that can absorb at that wavelength and convert ("wasting")  it into "Hitze" (as heat) not just re-radiate almost all of it at the same wavelength at which it has been aborbed
I am forced to use that German word "Hitze", because the entire mis-understanding of Planck, Kirchhoff etc began when the original German text was translated into other languages that use the same word "heat" to describe 2 entirely different things...namely a measure of temperature and the other heat ENERGY , which is something entirely different.

6.) Don`t leave out how any "Hitze" that causes a temperature increase is expended as increased evaporation as long as there is any water present
...which then gives rise to huge skyward convection currents, where it is subject to the altitude "lapse rate". 

7.) Don`t leave out that heated gasses want to expand, as as soon as they do the temperature drops.
(Carnot cycle)...






that applies not only to piston, jet or rocket engines:



but also to air masses.


That`s only a small part of the huge number of factors that are at play if you want to get serious about radiation effects and how they can impact on a mass  , regardless at what wavelength  if You want to express the impact as an actual temperature increase.

I also want to point out to you, that most of the people who really want to dig into physics prefer to study German and read Einstein`s, Planck`s etc original German text, because all these ambiguities that appear when any is translated into English don`t exist in German...a very precise and explicit language unlike English.
Look how easy it is to make a mistake..:
watts , watt S...just to point out a common one. It`s not quite that easy to make this mistake either in thought or writing in German.
So excuse my "bitching" when I see Spencer deliberately exploiting the same ambiguity that the English language affords to crooked lawyers and insurance companies that refuse to pay up.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Different from normal spectra under what definition of normal spectra?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, he should. If he doesn't want to explain his ideas he should shut up.
> ...






I could read N&Z until I'm blue in the face - I still won't know what YOU meant when you said "CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere". Only YOU can answer that. Or rather, it would appear, you cannot.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 8, 2012)

SSDD said:


> Can you prove that radiation flows in both directions at once



Take two flashlights. Turn them on. Shine one at another. There. Now you have radiation travelling two directions at once.

For fuckssake you're an expert on EVERYTHING so you should know these things.


> , and can you prove the existence of photons?


You want proof of the particle nature of light?

Really?https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=particle+nature+of+light&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I could read N&Z until I'm blue in the face - I still won't know what YOU meant when you said "CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere". Only YOU can answer that. Or rather, it would appear, you cannot.



Obviously you don't understand N&Z's work.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Take two flashlights. Turn them on. Shine one at another. There. Now you have radiation travelling two directions at once.



Are you sure you are a physicist?  Do you really believe the two filaments are swapping photons?  Can you prove it?



OohPooPahDoo said:


> For fuckssake you're an expert on EVERYTHING so you should know these things.
> 
> 
> > What has become apparent enough for me to know is that you spout a great many assumptions as if they are known facts.
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Dec 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can you prove that radiation flows in both directions at once
> ...



Frustrating isn`t it? If You would quit the heckling then the discussion could actually return back to facts that matter. It would also help if you would not insist to log into a forum thread like this one with a username that sound like baby talk when the diaper needs changing...but hey ! freedom of choice is the underpinning of freedom in general.
And that freedom should also be applied  for information...especially in the "main stream media", which refuses to report what the overwhelming majority of engineers and scientists who are not climatologists are saying about AGW.

I don`t think anyone said that radiation can`t propagate into 2 directions at once...but ever since Roy`s blogs and the press exposure he got there was more dis-information than information about radiation, photons, frequency specific quantum wave energy..not just on the internet but as I could observe while visiting ex-colleagues, this crap is now "taught"  *even in university lectures*. I was told if a prof refuses he is off the "political correct" brownie points list and that carries real carrier risks.  So if you are in fact a physicist in the making or a recent graduate I would not fault you for that.

After all, there is not much else in physics that can play tricks on even the brightest minds as the nature of light can. The best illusions are optical illusions and they won`t work in total darkness without light either.

One of these illusions is the one Roy is exploiting. Of course a colder object can *radiate* to a warmer object, but unless both are *near perfect* black bodies the radiation from the cooler object lacks the higher frequency quantum packets that it would take to increase the temperature of the hotter object that radiates way more of these higher energy photons per time *because it is hotter *.

Roy must know that ! So he creates an optical illusion with "back radiation" which is supposed to raise the temperature of the active (hotter) object with the few photons that were high enough in the spectrum + the already "hot" radiation from the active object "echo" that returned from the cooler passive object. Please don`t knit-pick my choice of words. We have the exact right words in German but in English I would have to use several sentences to accurately express how the process works.

Well that does not work like that with real light at any wavelength.
Let`s consider first if you could get any warmer than your heat source can heat you with only a portion of the IR being "echoed" back?...remember these were photons that came from your much hotter heat source to begin with. You can`t get any hotter with these than if you would have kept them to begin with, under some sort of perfect radiation blanket.
But photons are an energy from that can`t be stored like some other energy forms. So the hotter the active object the more energy it will radiate and the cooler the less. No matter which way you want to slice this onion, we call radiative energy transfer, it all comes down to the *rate of cooling*....not "back radiation" (echoes).
Okay then I had a rather low rate of cooling with my telescope "seeing" distant objects at ~ -4 C.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

IanC may actually have a point when he said the main object was my R40 window...because after all radiation does conform with the inverse square of the distance and the window was closer than all the even colder stuff outside.
But the fact still remains,...if I had a telescope like this:
http://i.space.com/images/i/13216/i02/vlt-laser-beam-1600.jpg?1320778679








and planted Spencer`s  active object with a 1000 watt heater implant in the focal point of a mirror this size and pointed it into a black hole the rate of cooling would be as high as it could get with this setup.

Now if I swing this VLT and point it at one of the brightest IR stars like Betelgeuse my rate of cooling would be way less than what I had at the previous coordinates.

The reason being, is that Betelgeuse radiated enough photons of the wavelength that effected the rate of cooling and were captured by the large mirror.
"Back-radiation" had nothing to do with it, because  my 1000 watt active radiation source would have to wait ~ 1280 years for the "back-radiation"....no matter how often Roy or Virginia said "Beetlejuice"







But while I`m waiting over a 1000 years for the "back-radiation"  I would observe a variation of the rate of cooling while the telescope is pointed at Betelgeuse:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Light_curve_of_Betelgeuse.png




and if there were a way to have the active 1000 watt object perfectly insulated with a small enough  aperture like an ideal black body cavity resonator where the light from Betelgeuse can enter with enough additional UV light from Betelgeuse I might even be bale to make the active object even hotter.




*But then I also did use an additional energy source

*In closing re-consider that a sphere like planet earth is *as opposite as it can get *from a black body that *does conform* to a Planck radiation frequency distribution profile..!!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 9, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I could read N&Z until I'm blue in the face - I still won't know what YOU meant when you said "CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere". Only YOU can answer that. Or rather, it would appear, you cannot.
> ...



Obviously you don't understand your own.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> *input equals output.*
> 
> when the second plate is put next to it, the energy flow will change as the second plate becomes warmer and affects the k(T1^4 - T2^4) relationship. *at some point* the second plate will reach equilibrium where the absorbed radiation is balanced by the loss to the cooled wall. at that time the first plate will also be at equilibrium* but at a higher temperature *than originally. *energy in equals energy out. *
> 
> *months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well, *except the second plate was considerably colder on the side which faces the wall, which we would expect because it is externally heated and the material would slow the energy flow.



You got it backwards, *energy out* may* at best *be equals *energy in* if You want to stick with the *same form of energy*.


Example 1.) Transformer
The energy out at the secondary coil could only be at best be =energy in from the primary coil if you had a perfect super conductor which you could engineer into a transformer...and at the same time you would have prevent any of the magnetic field radiating anywhere else than into the core.


Example 2.) Longitudinal waves
You can superimpose 2 so that they cancel each other out COMPLETELY..
in that case the "energy out" and "energy in" are most certainly no longer equal

Example 3.) *circularly polarized waves*
And that`s the kind of EM waves we are discussing in this thread
First consider that as soon as light is scattered as it passes through the atmosphere at angles less than perpendicular it becomes polarized, the shallower the angle the more it gets polarized.
The "output" for *fully polarized* light is only 1/2 of the "input"
Understand, I`m not claiming that we get  to "1/2 of the input" situation at any time of the day, but the radiation "input" is seriously reduced before and after the daily zenith and that happens already to a significant degree at any altitude where the overcast happens to be at a particular dew point situation. In that case even thin overcast or any situation where the sky does not look blue the Brewster effect "killed off" easily > 50% of the solar radiation that would otherwise reach the earth`s surface.
*For most of the days* out of each year *we are nowhere near* the situation "climate science" factors in as an *"average"*.
And then *only *during the *time slot* when the sun is at *zenith* over the position what this "energy balance" hypothesis snapshot illustrates







In one of your replies You said:


> when the second plate is put next to it, the energy flow will change as  the second plate becomes warmer and affects the k(T1^4 - T2^4)  relationship. at some point the second plate will reach equilibrium  where the absorbed radiation is balanced by the loss to the cooled wall.  at that time the first plate will also be at equilibrium but at a  higher temperature than originally. energy in equals energy out.
> 
> months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well,


Let me see these numbers,..I don`t have the time to scour US Messageboard.com where You posted them.

If You decide to generate a new set of numbers, don`t worry I,m not going to "police" you if they are the same or not.

I just want to see if your "back radiation" energy stops at the first pass or if it keeps going, as such a* feed back process would in the REAL WORLD.

*Engineers are by far more aware how a feed back process works than any other scientists who`s problems are over after "thought experiments".

If there is the *slightest gain*, called a *positive feed back*, this is what happens:







I simulated that with the distance sensor IR LED on my camera...which plays the "passive" role. The LCD display of my laptop is the "active" emitter which completes the feed back loop.
As You can see this is what happens with a *positive feedback*.
The original rather dim red LED is already a large bright light after only 6 feedback loops.
This is exactly what would happen to us if the AGW hypothesis were a real world reality...we would all cook like poopie-doo`s hapless frog in the micro wave oven if CO2 could "tip" the "radiation energy balance" the way the IPCC claims it can.

This is how a normal feed back loop works *in the real world*, the world engineers work with:







There is no gain, as a matter of fact it`s what we call a "negative feed back",...when the feed back loop *dampens* the *output* using the *input*.
In that picture the first loop is the laptop screen front right...and after each loop the brightness and size diminishes...
The same factors which are at play when a *real world active energy radiator  *irradiates a passive one (like Spencers cooler object)
Spencer says that the presence of a second cooler object will heat the active hot object even hotter...
*Every engineer worth his salt can tell you it ain`t so...!!!*
*A cooler object will cool the hotter* just like the infinite mirroring negative feedback would, which You see in the lower picture.

The positive feed back "IR catastrophe" which "climate science" uses for it`s scare mongering is simply *not possible unless You inject the extra energy required for any positive feedback loop at any wavelength or with any sort of wave propagation,...even sound waves.*
In the top, the positive feedback  picture the *extra energy came from the laptop batteries.*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmIY90uCmw&feature=youtu.be"]LCD to Cam feedback - YouTube[/ame]


If you know your physics then you should also realize that the IPCC claims the same long since debunked UV catastrophe scenario, only now this nonsense is re-invented at the other end of the spectrum with IR instead of UV


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 9, 2012)

SSDD said:


> There is no proof of the particle nature of light.  The particle nature of light is, like the greenhouse effect, an ad hoc construct created specifically to explain something that, at the time, and perhaps today, has no other explanation.




If you can explain black body radiation without quantizing radiation myself and the rest of the physics world would love to hear about it. In fact you should publish ASAP.




> Einstein himself was never really satisfied with the photon.



Einstein himself was never really satisfied with any of physics. Very few physicists are.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 9, 2012)

polarbear said:


> It would also help if you would not insist to log into a forum thread like this one with a username that sound like baby talk when the diaper needs changing...but hey !


You're ignorant.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVySGO8Ak_Q]Ooh Poo Pah Doo (Part I & Part II) - Jessie Hill - YouTube[/ame]

[/quote]


> I was told if a prof refuses he is off the "political correct" brownie points list and that carries real carrier risks.



You were told. OK. I was told you all full of bullshit.




> Of course a colder object can *radiate* to a warmer object, but unless both are *near perfect* black bodies the radiation from the cooler object lacks the higher frequency quantum packets that it would take to increase the temperature of the hotter object that radiates way more of these higher energy photons per time *because it is hotter *.




You don't understand what's going on at all. The Earth's surface is heated by free streaming _radiation from the sun_. The equilibrium temperature of the Earth depends on how fast this radiation can be re-radiated back into space. The presence of an absorbing barrier impedes this effect by preventing some of the re-radiated light from becoming free streaming, raising the equilibrium temperature
*
If you threw a blanket over your body in cold weather, the blanket doesn't have to be warmer than your body to keep you warm, does it? *Your body has its own heat source - the source of Earth's heat energy is the portion of the free streaming-radiative energy from the Sun which is thermalized upon impact with the surface. 

You need to get your head out your ass.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Ooh Poo Pah Doo (Part I & Part II) - Jessie Hill - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The loudmouth heckler who claims he is a physicist appeared again 








just in time to change the subject from what the difference between an imaginary positive CO2 IR feedback loops is and how it really works 








to a string of insults and a seedy bar room cacophony CD.
Then he ends with the same idiotic Spencer heat blanket  "insulation effect" explanation to make a case for *positive feedback* that is supposed to be able to raise an existing energy level without any extra energy.
The same Spencer heat blanket "effect" that sacked the dazzled Virginia when it`s there during a cold night but can`t be there when the sun is out and would keep her from baking like your micro wave oven frog.
Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat *CONDUCTION* loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.
Not even IanC`s insistence that time is not a factor when determining how much *energy* could possibly come from a *power* source,...and that a feedback loop ends after only 1 cycle,  is as not dumb as what you keep pooping *all day long every day of the week *into almost every US message board thread that does not fit into your childish world view....








Go shit on a police car or something,








 just don`t try do that to my car...it`ll be the last thing you ever did.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> *but at a higher temperature than originally. *[/COLOR]
> energy in equals energy out.
> 
> months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well,
> ...




*I`m still waiting. **
Graph it *!...there are lots of easy to use online plotters
So use the numbers you had since months where  q ( the watts/m^2) the heat transfer rate is :  f(x) = Area * k *((T1) ^4 - (T2)^4)  till T1-T2 =0...that`s when both are at an equilibrium and *show me then how that happens at a higher temperature than where T1 was at the beginning.*..!!! 

Why even bother using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant k, because you don`t have any idea whatsoever what the surface area of Spencer`s plates were...unless you are his daughter Virginia and he told you, but nobody else.
I do demand you also tell me what these plates were made from.
*Unless both are perfect black bodies with an emissivity  of 1.0 or you specify a material and the right (e) you have no business at all using this equation..!!!*
Name a material where the emissivity stays the same as the temperature varies !
*Don`t even dream, that CO2 or the dirt in your yard or the  ocean surface that covers 7/10 of the earth could be such a material* !

I guess that`s what non engineers and armchair scientists call "moaning for details" when it comes down to the not so minor details.



> your putting a time limit on the time to reach equilibrium is just as  stupid as wirebender saying that both plates would be the same  temperature at equilibrium even though one is heated and the other is  not.


This is what happens if Roy`s heater is a real electric heater...no heater can put out more heat above the maximum because the increased resistance of the heating element chokes off the current at a constant Voltage.
Neither Roy nor you can wrap your head around it...so who was the stupid one, Wirebender or You ?







Guess what *without any EXTRA heat *as in "sorry no can do" when the Volts across Roy`s electric heater stay constant both plates stabilize at an equilibrium that is not any warmer than what T1 was before the colder passive plate was inserted.
The only thing wrong with the "Wirebender" function is that he nor anyone else could possibly guess the surface area *nor the mass *and the material used in this bastardization of science that uses terms like "eventually"...else it would be no problem to show exactly at what temp the colder passive plate would stabilize.
Engineers have to solve for that all the time. What do you think would happen to an engineer that designs cars where the upper exhaust pipe manifold is too close to the floorboard which is lined inside with flammable floor covering...?...
Do you think he figures that out with a "thought experiment" or builds "trial cars" to see if they catch fire ?

How would you even begin to convert *power* to an *energy* level if You leave out the time, the mass, the area and the temperature emissivity ?
*"eventually it reaches an equilibrium...".*..what kind of "science" is that ?
Energy flows take the easiest and shortest paths to get from a higher to a lower energy state...
they don`t just any route which "eventually" gets them there.
Why don`t you stick a fork into one of your hydro sockets if you have some trouble understanding that


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 9, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat *CONDUCTION* loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.



Actually blankets do not block out all radiation.


The CO2 works exactly like a blanket in the bands in which it absorbs.  

Take your medication.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat *CONDUCTION* loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.
> ...



No thanks I don`t smoke "medical marihuana". Reading what you just wrote in here they must have stopped prosecuting all the dope smoking crack heads already.


> Actually blankets do not block out *all *radiation.


So what...how much radiation is that ?
Even the cheapest heat blanket they sell today at any Walmart can hide you from all but the very best night vision sensors as those in the latest Apache attack helicopter nose cone.
Comparing the few narrow bands where CO2 absorbs to the blanket that leaks all that radiation you just complained about is about as dumb as seeking shelter in a downpour under 3 hydro wires....and you just made both statements back to back.
I was playing with the thought to make the mouse clicks which are necessary to put you on my ignore list...but it`s just too funny to read the other stuff between all these insults.
Actually I came here not because of you, but I was wondering when IanC publishes his graph...tomorrow I`m off for the holidays...
*Anyhow this is for you Ian:*

Now I understand why they place the exhaust manifold so close to the "back-radiating" engine block, so they can make each other hotter with
 the extra back radiation heat energy and melt the rubber caps on the spark plugs.








*That manifold gets as hot as the exhaust gas  once you step on the gas.*
Exactly how hot, that`s measured all the time by the ECM under your dashboard...and the guy that wrote the software which is
on the ECM EPROM  knows the exact values for each power setting...else the ECM responses ,  for 8 spark plug HV dwelling times, 8 injectors
for each revolution  15 times per per second would be all fucked up before you even get to step on the gas pedal..

Show me a manifold that`s not as hot as the exhaust already at 1/4 throttle under a moderate load..
unless you cool it with forced air...like the old WW2 VW interior heater
blowers did...till a few people got Carbon monoxide poisoning when the manifold had a leak.

Just take off  the manifold on a pre-computer V8 , start the engine,  have somebody step on the gas  and watch
out,  else you get torched to a crisp by at least 4 of the 8 flamethrowers  if you are too close...






After that if  you still think think that a few  Spencer back radiation photons can make that manifold hotter than the exhaust  
then you must be living in  the same  State where Poophead lives and the D.A. already  quit prosecuting  people that smoke dope.

If not and you are still convinced Roy`s back radiation positive  feedback (energy gain)  can make the manifold hotter than the exhaus gas can make it...
Go ahead and patent it...because if that works why should it stop at the manifold...a hotter manifold can make the hot exhaust gas even hotter yet...
isn`t that the same thing as what you have already  claculated months ago ?
*Now I know why these numbers are a secret, just like Roy`s  secret details, it`s still in the patent pending stage  ...wink wink...*
 
Because you and Roy realized that  instead of blowing the even hotter gas out the tailpipe you can  run it through as many Stirling engines as you want and behind each Stirling engine you install a Spencer cold plate "fuel reactor" to reheat the exhaust...
All that`s left to do and   perfect the perpetual motion car,  is to  run it on hydrogen, ...there should be lots of power to spare to make it by electrolysis from a bit of water...which you replenish of course from the exhaust condensate...because that condenser gives you additional latent heat when  steam condenses to water and with that heat you can even run some more Stirling engines.
The only problem you would have to worry about is how to control a beast like that, which increases the power with so many Spencer positive feed back loops so it does not go super nova.
Is that the delay, or is the  prototype that the patent office wants to see not quite finished yet,  before this sensational piece of engineering is rolled out of the Area 51 gate ?
No wonder people have been seeing strange lights coming out of there,...they leaked out from a top secret Spencer positive feed back photon reactor


Does it make a cool science fiction sound like that in positive feed back mode...? All the "Star Treckies" will buy it just for that reason...you can`t miss...just watch out for Obama`s tax the rich plan..Would you or Roy be interested in a large chunk of ice way out in the Lincoln sea in international territory for a air head office headquarters?


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, he should. If he doesn't want to explain his ideas he should shut up.
> ...



that is funny! N&Z cook up a formula that uses a handful of data points and just about as many tweakable variables and you are complaining about _ad hoc_ hypotheses. not that I am supporting AGW and CO2 as the control knob of climate, I am just laughing at your complete approval of an alternate theory just because you want it to be true.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.
> ...



I am agreeing with you that electrons flow in one direction but leaving room for strange quantum exceptions, because there always seems to be strange quantum exceptions.

the thing is.....electrons are matter, and they dont flow through each other like photons do. a photon, one emitted, proceeds at the same frequency and in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. with the usual caveats about gravity and expansion of space which are moot when dealing with low energy, short distance conditions on earth. photons pass right through each other with no exchange of energy.

if you dont believe in photons, why dont you _disprove_ them? rather than expect others to prove that a basic building block of the universe actually exists? hahahahaha, you are looney.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



atmospheric vs strictly CO2


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > its still just a though experiment Bernie.
> ...



why are you asking me to defend factors not in play in the specific case of Spencer's experiment? 

are you saying that you believe that CO2 has absolutely no effect what so ever on the radiative transfer of energy in the atmosphere? that CO2 does not interact in any form? or are you stating that you dont believe that CO2 has any meaningful influence upon the climate? those are very different questions. just because known mechanisms exist where CO2 interacts with the atmosphere and hence the climate, that does not mean that the CAGW warmists are correct in saying that CO2 is the control knob. I personally believe that CO2 has some small effect that is reduced by negative feedbacks but I would not deny any effect what so ever because there is a known mechanism, known spectral lines, known increases.

you make yourself look like a kook if you insist that CO2 is not even a _factor to be discussed_.

I honestly dont know why you have such a hatred for Spencer. he has done more to debunk climate models and show that the feedbacks are negative than just about anybody else. have you actually read anything he has to say about climate? unlike you, Spencer has a voice that has to be listened to by 'the consensus', and he uses it to promote skeptical issues and to debunk CAGW (non)science. if you are waiting for SSDD's N&Z to overturn public opinion then you are as crazy as they are.

your points 1-7 are red herrings. I have never said there were no other factors involved, I have repeatedly said that there are! I find it dishonest of you and insulting to me that you present these things as if it were a rebuttal to anything I have actually said. quote my actual words the next time you feel the need to accuse me, or to lecture me.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2012)

polarbear said:


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


----------



## polarbear (Dec 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> *wirebender before, and SSDD presently have denied that a cooler object can radiate towards a warmer object*. wirebender said it was 'EM fields' cancelling out and SSDD says it is the second law but the mechanism is unknown.
> *that segues into Spencer's thought experiment  ....the heater inbedded in the first plate*......
> 
> with electrical wires connected to both in the illustration
> ...



Okay I`m up already, it`s past 0600 and we are getting ready to leave for the holidays...I cant stay here and wait for your k*( (T1)^4 - (T2)^4) number set any longer where You said You showed that Spencer is right.

He is not right, he is wrong, you are wrong, *SSD is right,* I don`t know what wirebender wrote about this radiation "cancelling" stuff 

How often do I have to point out that there is a huge difference if the *Stefan Boltzmann law i*s applied to a radiating body that has a constant heat supply *from another radiating body,*....the sun..
And then apply the same equation as if an internal to boot electric heater is the heat source which supplies heat via *heat CONDUCTION*.

Once you do that you have no business to proceed the way Roy does invoking the Stefan-Bolzmann law or Max Planck`s.
But hey, I`m not stingy and "moaning over minor details" I`ll let Roy & you get away with that little cheat..
But I can`t let you, all the other Virginias and Roy get away from using the Stefan Boltzmann equation *the wrong way around.*
_q = &#949; &#963; (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac

__It is complete nonsense  to apply the Stefan Boltzmann law  without regard  in which direction the net energy flux is oriented.
Q  yields only a positive value for  the energy flux from a hotter object to colder surrounding.
_It does not matter if  the surrounding  is warm  but not warmer than the warmer object  the flux direction will remain at a positive Q  value from hotter to cooler._
Any attempt to apply  the Stefan Boltzmann law in an attempt to show that there is a positive flux direction from cooler to hotter is a gross violation of this law 
_if it is applied without regard  which of the 2  T`s inside the Temperature Brackets _ represents the body that  is the active radiator (T1) and which T represents the passive receiver (T2).
_The only valid way to apply this law is to  adhere to this law and place _what is now supposed to be the  active radiator  in front of the - sign _and what is also now  supposed to be the_ passive receiver_ which is at a higher temperature_ behind the - sign_ to obtain the proper heat radiation flux rate and_ direction.
_
*So don`t smart mouth me as You did when You asked if I have a problem with "directionality"
* _

 _Placing the assigned T^4  values_* where they belong yields a negative Q value *_and none of the thermodynamic laws have been violated _as they are by all those who apply the Stefan Boltzmann law when they* switch **the role *of the cooler, the passive receiver to the role of the active radiator* without switching the T^4 value* they assigned to cooler radiator* to the proper side of the minus sign*
inside the bracket.
There is no way heat flows from cold to hot, not by conduction, radiation or any other way.
_The only way  a cooler body can affect the rate of  radiative  energy transfer  is to drop the  magnitude of  Q which is the rate at which Q looses heat,_ the rate at which it can cool off. I told you over and over and even demonstrated it to you in a video

_At best it can make Q=0 when both are at the same temperature and  only so if the body  that is supposed to have a Q of zero_ is completely surrounded _by another body, which is being kept at the same temperature by an external energy source *that makes up for the heat which the SURROUNDING body, the insulator looses on the OUTSIDE.*_
_"Climatology" however has it the other way around. They try tell you that  they conform to the Stefan Boltzmann law, while they use it the wrong way around and at the same time maintain the wrong * "thought experiment body"*, the *surrounded  body *with a constant heat  source the sun just  like Spencer`s internal heater ._


_But as you keep saying, when an engineer "moans over details"... it does not matter it`s just a "simple thought experiment".....to which I reply, taking the liberty to extend this statement with:  .... that "climate science" is  based on.

Now I`ve got to get going...
Happy Holidays 
have a merry Christmas & a happy new year


I`m still waiting for the last passenger to arrive for our holiday trip so I hav the time to add this question..:
*How on earth can You possibly get a positive feed back with a negative Q energy transfer rate*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 10, 2012)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



It would be transparent to X-ray and gamma-ray radiation, and probably microwave and radio bands as well.





> Now I understand why they place the exhaust manifold so close to the "back-radiating" engine block, so they can make each other hotter with
> the extra back radiation heat energy and melt the rubber caps on the spark plugs.



The exhaust manifold is made of metal. Its not a good blanket.




> After that if  you still think think that a few  Spencer back radiation photons can make that manifold hotter than the exhaust


 
There's no such thing as a "Spencer back radiation photon". They just regular photons. If you don't understand basic absorption and emission then there's nothing I can teach you. Hell you don't even understand how a fucking blanket works.  


Do you know how those shiny emergency blankets work? In your words, they work by "Spencer back radiation photons" ! They DON'T have to be warmer than your body, either.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > *wirebender before, and SSDD presently have denied that a cooler object can radiate towards a warmer object*. wirebender said it was 'EM fields' cancelling out and SSDD says it is the second law but the mechanism is unknown.
> ...








it make no difference which T^4 is first in the equation. if it results in a negative number then the net radiation is simply in the other direction.

wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.


edit- I see you have accused me of saying heat flows from cold to warm, yet again. care to dig up the quote? of course not, it is easier just to make an unsubstantiated strawman to knock down. I have never said heat flows against the temperature gradient and you know it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.



I am not sure what the root of this particular point is, but if you are referencing the SB equation it would be wrong mathematically to apply the constant to each T4.  Not only wrong mathematically, but just plain bad math.  What sort of math requires that you unnecessarily complicate an equation by applying the distributive property when that application is not necessary?  Isn't the goal to get the equation down to its most elegant form?  If so, applying the distruibutive property is completely unnecessary and just wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.



I am not sure what the root of this particular point is, but if you are referencing the SB equation it would be wrong mathematically to apply the constant to each T4.  Not only wrong mathematically, but just plain bad math.  What sort of math requires that you unnecessarily complicate an equation by applying the distributive property when that application is not necessary?  Isn't the goal to get the equation down to its most elegant form?  If so, applying the distruibutive property is completely unnecessary and just wrong.

To what purpose would you apply the distributive property?  What do you get by doing that that you wouldn't get by using the equation as it is actually written?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 11, 2012)

IanC said:


> *it make no difference which T^4 is first in the equation.* if it results in a negative number then the net radiation is simply in the other direction.
> 
> wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.
> 
> ...




My wife is a diabetic and when we arrived in Winnipeg she realized that she forgot her Insulin kit at home.
So this morning I drove back here to get it....and took the opportunity to use my home PC that has all the bookmarks to see if you are finally showing me your k* (T1^4 -T^24) numbers.
But instead you are now claiming:


> *it make no difference which T^4 is first in the equation.*


You still don`t understand that the ORIGINAL (german text) description of the Stefan Boltzmann law does not use the term "T(h)" as in "hot" and "T(c)" as in cold...it also describes the energy flux *and + or - direction*

as does any equation where flux direction matters...like directional field lines of a magnet...or the + or - angular momentum of *ANY WAVE.

*I know full well that you never generated that set of numbers You would get from k*(t1^4 -t2^4)*..*.because had you done so, then it may have dawned on you that you used the St.B. equation* in its wrong form *when you want to see how the radiation flux varies *per degree Kelvin*.

For that You need the *1.rst differential of t1^4-T2^4*..which is *4*t^3*

And then it might have dawned on you just how wrong (Roy Spencer) and you are:

4*x^3 Graph

The numbers Roy or you pick out of thin air because they are "details that don`t matter" would give an *increased cooling rate *of 1.054 times if you use Roy`s numbers that as he says the 150 F "*eventually*" stabilized at "*at let`s say*"  160 F...after he placed a cooler second object next to it.

A 100 Watt heater would already be out paced by a 105.4 watt heat radiation loss just to that second cooler plate of unknown dimensions...never mind the chilled wall enclosure which is at 0 F
 Unless You INSULATE it...with a perfect insulator instead of a wall chilled to 0 F
*The real world is surrounded by an atmosphere *

 The not so black body radiation sphere is surrounded by  a cooler atmosphere where each 500 foot layer is 1 F colder that the one below it...and out-going heat  radiation which conforms to the differential of  the Stefan Boltzmann equation *radiates  it outward 1.054 times faster per  delta T*  already at an altitude  below 5000 feet. as it happens at the ground to air interface.

But CO2 can at best *decrease the cooling rate* by a factor of  1.0017  


If our atmosphere were just Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide we would freeze to death *were it not for the evaporated water  component that  is a part of the gas mixture our atmosphere does consist of
* 

The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact



> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]*[SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug
> [/SIZE]*[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva]Applying the IR beam source (a so-called *Globar *, an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to 1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an *FTIR* spectrometer *"Bruker IFS 48"* coupled to a PC. The program *OPUS* was used as analyzing software. A zero bias measurement was made to be subtracted later.[/FONT]
> 
> 
> ...


And that`s just the radiative radiative transfer  aspect of  the IPCC  swindle which is based on "thought experiments" like Spencer`s and used for the smoke and mirror "computer climate models"

But now I better run my wife`s Insulin kit to Winnipeg where we are going to spend the holidays.
Merry Christmas "IanC"

After Christmas when I get back home I would also like to know how  you made a straw man out of all these claims that *SSDD or everybody else who says  is wrong *when they said that heat does not flow from cold to hot...
*You switch sides faster than Italians do in a war*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 11, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.
> ...




Its not "wrong" to apply the distributive property you frickin moron, the result is the same.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Its not "wrong" to apply the distributive property you frickin moron, the result is the same.



You are an angry a-hole, aren't you?  Perhaps if you weren't in the wrong, you could be more calm.  Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?  Applying a property when it is unnecessary is simply bad math.  Did you learn to unnecessarily complicate equations in your alleged education?  What sort of idiot taught you that that it was either correct or acceptable to apply properties to an equation for no apparent reason?

What do you get by applying the distributive property that you would not get by simply sticking to the equation as it was originally written?


----------



## IanC (Dec 11, 2012)

> polarbear
> I eat morons
> Member #27364
> 
> ...





I went back to look at that old thread to see if it actually was you that posted the misleading spectra graphs of incandescent and florescent bulbs with the IR portion truncated. it was.

I also re-read some of the posts and it backs up how you agreed with nonsense from wirebender and gslack while fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements. I finally ended up calling you an asshole then and I feel pretty justified calling you a _hypocritical asshole _ now.

you should be ashamed of yourself for being willing to say anything, and agree with people who are obviously wrong just to buttress your extremist 'denier' position which is equally as wrong as the extremist 'warmer' position. 

I must admit I foolishly made excuses for your boorish behaviour then, and up until today when I read the whole exchange at one time rather than piecemeal over days. you disgust me because you are obviously smart enough to know better. get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements.



There is no reason to stand in the middle of the road.



IanC said:


> get drunk and go to sleep in a snowbank. it would be a blessing for your wife.



Wow.  You are even angrier than oooba dooba looba and apparently even more bitter than old rocks and rolling whats his name.  Wishing death on someone because they don't agree with you?  What sort of person thinks like that?


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > fighting tooth and nail with my reasoned, middle-of-the-road statements.
> ...





I thought I was pretty explicit on why I was pissed at polarbear. obviously your reading comprehension is deficient.

as far as being in the middle of the road---the warmists have very little to base their claims on and the CO2 mechanism is the only real evidence they have. I personally dont believe that attacking their only strong leg is the way to change public and scientific opinion that global warming is real, and make no mistake, they do. by continuing to erode the much weaker links like feedbacks, climate models, and faulty measurements we can leave them with nothing but an applecore to perch their lunatic conclusions on.

I may be wrong. perhaps N&Z can strengthen their paper thin theory to the point where it is taken seriously. or something else comes along and grabs the public and scientific communities. but until then I think the extreme denial side of the skeptics is doing a disservice to the world by being unreasonable. make your best scientific case! but you also have to be willing to answer hard questions honestly without deflection, dishonesty and discourtesy in the fashion of SSDD, rollingthunder, polarbear or Old Rocks.

I want to see the travesty of CAGW fixed more than I want to be 'right'.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> > polarbear
> > I eat morons
> > Member #27364
> >
> ...



Shit there are too many teenagers at my daughters house playing online games, it takes an eternity just to load a newspaper screen page.
It`s not all that far from Winnipeg back to my house, so I picked up my Roger`s 3G mobile hub at home. They call it a &quot;Rocket hub&quot;...in Winnipeg it does deserve that name, but not when it`s more than 15 licks from the nearest Roger`s node.

So, if I clicked the &quot;Thanks&quot; button at other people`s postings because there was some truth to it that makes me responsible for everything else they wrote?...and suggest *I should* commit suicide because they offended you ? Yes we do have lots of snowbanks,...and it sure as shit is cold here,...but I don`t consume alcohol...ever...!! nor any other intoxicants.

So what about Your spread sheet array for all these T1^4 - T2^4  scenarios where are they ??

Do You understand what a &quot;*rate of increase*&quot; or decrease is ?
So what`s the* rate in increase* for x with a function, f(x)=  x^2...it`s the first differential, *2x...the RATE OF INCREASE*
 For f(x)= x^4  the *rate of increase* is  4x^3
No matter if  you substitute it with a different letter you picked from the alphabet.

T1 > T2.         T1  radiates  at k * T1^4   the *in- or decrease * of the* ENERGY *which is radiated in relation to the *Temperature* * in- or decrease *

is *( k* T^4) /delta T* =  *k* 4 T^3 * .....

*A.)* When a hotter *T*_h  _black body   radiates *ENERGY * and thus cools off  to a colder T_c   _*Temperature *then it  looses*ENERGY *at a *rate* of*   k* 4* Th ^3  *

*B.)* When a colder  T_c  _black body  radiates *ENERGY *   and   cools off as it must to a lower  *Temperature*   then    looses *ENERGY * at a  rate of * k * 4*T**c **^3

In B at the cooler TEMPERATURE   the ENERGY transfer rate is much lower   than  in A   at a higher TEMPERATURE


*It is therefore impossible to raise the *TEMPERATURE* of a hotter black body at  *T*_*h* _ A, which  is cooling off , loosing heat  *ENERGY* *at a rate * of k* 4* T_h_ ^3   
with B at *T*_*c*, _that can supply *heat ENERGY*at a *rate*which is only *k*4*T**c**^3*


The laws of mathematics *apply  for any delta T*,  no matter how large delta T,    T_h_*^4*  -T_c_*^4*  ;  *with Th-Tc  chosen arbitrarily*, or if   T_h_-T_c _ ==>  1/ &#8734;

IanC  has been studying &quot;Climate Science&quot; and  says it does not matter  which of the 2  T`s in the equation  is plugged in  for the body  that looses *ENERGY* at a
higher or a lower  rate  ....and by equating *ENERGY* (k* T^4)... with *TEMPERATURE  * they manage to heat a hotter body with a colder one.


But now You`ve gone off the deep end &quot;IanC&quot;...suggesting I should commit suicide to &quot;do my wife a favor&quot;. Not only do you confuse which T is what in a simple equation...now you are confusing who my wife is. My wife & I have been happily marries for over 40 years...*YOU are not my wife*...and I`m not &quot;gay&quot;
 I don`t think same sex marriage is Okay. Perhaps the sharp pencil that engineers use when they check the facts hurts those who`s balloon got popped. And the "radiative forcing" which uses a positive feed back mechanism is a balloon full of hot air that just begs to get popped.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> I thought I was pretty explicit on why I was pissed at polarbear. obviously your reading comprehension is deficient.



So you wish death on someone because they disagree with you.  Do you like what that says about your character?  



IanC said:


> the warmists have very little to base their claims on and the CO2 mechanism is the only real evidence they have.



Again, you simply assume that they have evidence.  The fact is that there isn't a bit of evidence to buttress the claims that CO2 absorption and emission causes warming.  Assumption upon assumption is all you have.  No evidence whatsoever.

Now do you wish death on me also? 



IanC said:


> I personally dont believe that attacking their only strong leg is the way to change public and scientific opinion that global warming is real, and make no mistake, they do.



They don't have a strong leg and your belief in the magic to a lesser degree is your own weakness.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 12, 2012)

SSDD said:


> Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?



It "complicates" the problem? Maybe if you're an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you would get the same answer, but what would you get by applying the distributive property when it unnecessarily complicates the problem?
> ...



So are you lying when you say you are a physicist or are you just a dishonest 
meshuggana who like your idols will say anything, no matter how stupid in an effort to rationalize your belief in CAGW?

Dodging only makes you look stupid so I will ask again, why would one apply the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant?  What do you get by applying the distributive property to the SB equation that you don't get by using the equation as it is written.

Try just answering the question instead of following your kneejerk reaction to dodge.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > polarbear
> ...






here we go again. what is your point? what system are you talking about? the atmosphere and climate? I thought we were talking about Spencer's thought experiment? 

in Spencer's experiment there are no rates of change needed. measurements are made at equilibrium points so you are just jerking off. keep on topic or at the very least inform us when you are going to stray.


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2012)

SSDD said:


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





hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 12, 2012)

SSDD said:


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



Neither you fucking moron.



> Dodging only makes you look stupid so I will ask again, why would one apply the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant?


 It doesn't fucking matter you piddling moron. You remind me of the idiots that occasionally send me emails declaring they've proven Einstein wrong.

LIke this idiot:

Gravity Spheres Theory


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2012)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.



I notice that you didn't answer the question either.  Between you two geniuses, you should be able to answer the question I have asked.  

Why would you apply any property to an equation that is already elegant?  What is to be gained by doing it?  What do you get that you don't get when you use the equation as it is actually written?

How about an answer?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> It doesn't fucking matter you piddling moron. You remind me of the idiots that occasionally send me emails declaring they've proven Einstein wrong.



Of course it matters and if you were a physicist, you would know that it matters.  Now again, why would one apply the distributive property, or any property for that matter to an equation that was already elegant?


If there is a reason for doing it, what is it and if there is no reason, why do it?  If you can't answer, then just admit it rather than continuing on in your childish dodge.

Let me ask you this mr "physicist".....do you believe that equations such as the SB actually describe something that is happening or are you under the impression that they are completely abstract?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 13, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't fucking matter you piddling moron. You remind me of the idiots that occasionally send me emails declaring they've proven Einstein wrong.
> ...



The result is still the same you fucking idiot. Whether or not its "elegant" is a matter of opinion and of no scientific merit.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2012)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.
> ...





OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.






Planck curves for two objects, one at 10C, the other at  -10C. if you wanted to see how much energy was leaving the warmer object to the cooler one how would you do it? in a stripped down, complexities removed thought experiment you would simply calculate the radiation leaving the first, then calculate the radiation leaving the second, subtract them and the net result would be your answer, and depending on whether the answer was positive or negative you would know the direction.




> The rate of energy emitted by an ideal surface, frequently called a blackbody, is given by the following relationship:
> E = KsbT^4
> where T is absolute temperature & Ksb is the Stefan-Boltzamnn constant which is 0.567 x 10-9 W/mK4



you may have noticed that there is only one (T^4) term. that is because the other term is assumed to be zero and 0^4=0. this also the reason why we must measure in the absolute temperature scale of degrees Kelvin.






we could work out both terms and subtract them, but it is easier to just subtract the T^4 terms immediately so that we only have to write the constant terms once.







what I find elegant is how the visual Planck curves so easily describe what is going on in radiation exchanges. it is easy to see why the second law is correct. the warmer object always has an excess of radiation to give to the other cooler object. as the two objects get closer together in temperature there is less and less excess (this is where polarbear's first derivative comes into play) to drive heat exchange. and when the two objects are the same temperature, it shows how there is still an exchange of radiation, just no movement of heat.


I will ask you again....what do _you_ think happens when two objects are the same temperature? you said before that radiation could only go from a warmer to cooler object, even down to one single photon. if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2012)

IanC said:


> OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.



Still no answer.  Not to worry, I didn't expect one.



IanC said:


> if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?



My suspicion is that it goes in another direction.  The 2nd law doesn't just say that energy can't transfer from cool to warm, but that it won't spontaneously move from cool to warm.  That statement sounds to me much the same as saying that a dropped rock won't fall spontaneously up, or that water or a marble won't roll spontaneously up hill, or that air won't spontaneously fill a balloon.  Why do you think none of those things can happen but somehow energy can go from cool to warm?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The result is still the same you fucking idiot. Whether or not its "elegant" is a matter of opinion and of no scientific merit.



We aren't talking about results, we are talking about equations.   Why is it that you can't answer such a simple question.  Why would someone apply an unnecessary property to an equation that is already elegant?  Is that question over your head?  If it is, just say so and I will stop asking.  If it isn't, then answer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 13, 2012)

IanC said:


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




Wow.. I see this has gotten real ugly since I left. Probably saw that coming..  Hope you've made progress.. But I don't think so.. I think we are still confusing Thermodynamics with EM Fields and Waves here.. 

Would I be out of line if I observed that photons don't KNOW and don't CARE if they are pointed towards a "warmer" or a "cooler" object??? Otherwise, Captain Kirk would be defenseless if the Klingon Vessel was sitting in a warm pool...


----------



## polarbear (Dec 14, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



*That could have been settled years ago had the AGW con-artists  shared their raw data...which they refused. They even deleted most of it after the e-mail scandal...and all we have now is "error corrected" data.
*Even if we, who are being called "deniers" *had only all* the  "error corrected" data *we could still test the hypothesis.*
The last time I looked up the definition of "denier" it was when a proven fact is denied. Here we have a bunch of clowns who call themselves "scientists" that skipped all the necessary tests and call everyone who wants to test them a "denier".
*One of these clowns keeps bragging he was a NASA Scientist:*







How did Spencer  get the bragging rights to "NASA Scientist" ?  

*A.) *was NASA engaged in Global Warming Research
and Spencer applied for the job, then got it having won a competition against  lesser  qualified scientists...?
Or was it the other way around ?
*B.)* A leftist political pressure group where Spencer was front and center along with Al Gore etc  was engaged
in a left wing tax $ grabbing scheme and   Government funded NASA  was the easiest target to be pressured
to bend over, either with the pants up or down for their boy Roy Spencer
But Spencer does not even meet the category B criteria..*today he is as much of a NASA scientist as I am*

*Any scientist * that  is part of *category A*  would have been able to settle the Global Warming argument and the mechanism
the hypothesis outlines with the  existing statistical data *already at hand  *without additional huge expenditures to NASA.
Climatologists assure us they  have gathered enough valid day by day temperature data  for many decades.

Any  *category A-rated*  NASA scientist  *would have realized from the start that  the best STATISTICAL test* for 
the backbone of  the "cooler black body-which can warm a warmer black body even warmer"  hypothesis  
is to see if that held true with a *statistical significance  of 5 %  for all the full moon night time temperatures.*

http://www.moonphases.info/full_moon_calendar_dates.html

*It`s easy to show what the cooling rate of air with 380 ppm is* if  You go outside during such a night and point a telescope with a  sensitive Thermistor in the focal point at any celestial body.
NASA&#8217;s AMSU-A satellite does it exactly the same way I did it, looking down...*the only difference is that I get the cooling rate at the ground level *looking up...and AMSU-A got it averaged *looking from the top down*. AMSU-A used a Platinum wire resistor and I used a modern high precision Thermistor
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=3"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

...and the Negro avatar Poophead "physicist" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




and IanC who doesn`t understand the  difference between power, energy, temperature and what a rate of change is came back with  childish "hahahaas" and "lol"  twitter-mudflinging-english 

Precision Platinum wire resistance thermometers and Thermistors have been around since the time when Spencer was still 
in elementary school.

Only a* B-rated braggart* with influential friends in high places would  abuse NASA`s resources to gather *even more skewed and equally useless statistical data  like this which he gathered long after being a "NASA Scientist" and continues to tarnish NASA`s reputation with crap like that *:

Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (Oct. '12: +0.33°C)







> Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA&#8217;s Aqua satellite *has been removed  from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average  of the NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSUs.  *The graph above represents the latest  update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month.   *Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated  in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of  temperature.*  They instead use their own on-board precision redundant  platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference  standard before launch.


By the way if it came down to this low level where bragging rights are used to settle scientific arguments I could lay claim to *way more* real substance than anything Roy Spencer has ever done.
No, I`m not claiming I worked with Wernher von Braun at *NASA...*that politically correct post-Wernher von Braun "equal employment opportunity"  NASA,...which Roy still keeps bragging about, but on another military  project that came much later and was quite a bit more complex than the drones that get all the claim to fame...even though there is a remote pilot involved as opposed to the early Tomahawks I`m referring to.
You can strap *any engine to a low-G maneuver drone*, but *not just any turbine* (like a low cost A.P.U. turbine) to a high G-rate of turn missile...as most contractors who had  politically correct hiring policies  and bid on that project found out the hard way...and I bet anything neither poophead nor IanC would have a clue what the problem would be if you did


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 14, 2012)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > The result is still the same you fucking idiot. Whether or not its "elegant" is a matter of opinion and of no scientific merit.
> ...



Maybe they have a different idea of what "elegant" means. Maybe they don't care about whether or not its "elegant". Maybe the nurse should be informed you're spending way more than the time allowed on the internet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 14, 2012)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.. I see this has gotten real ugly since I left. Probably saw that coming..  Hope you've made progress.. But I don't think so.. I think we are still confusing Thermodynamics with EM Fields and Waves here..
> ...



WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something? 

What is with these observations that we can't detect nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record? 

The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2 and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most). But it DOES deliver energy. Just like those McDonalds heating lamps that are probably cooler than a burger when it first comes off the grill and becomes warmer than the burger after a couple hours of it laying on the counter. The energy is simply NOT ENOUGH to overcome the THERMAL LOSSES over time. It provides a SMALL increment of warming energy CONSTANTLY -- regardless of the relative temperatures. The 2nd law simply states that in STEADY STATE -- the burger cannot become hotter than the lamp. (because of energy transfer OVER TIME). The experiment is not to measure relative temps, but to quantify the amount of heating provided by the IR to the object REGARDLESS of relative temperature. Turn the lamp OFF and measure the diff in the time required for the burger to cool to it's 1st 10Degs. 

Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that 4mm sq to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..

* So the observation SHOULD BE -- that you DON'T EXPECT an increase in temperature at ALL !!!! You should be looking (as with the hamburger) for a DECREASE in the rate of HEAT LOSS !!!!* And this can not be measured statically. It can only be quantified OVER TIME. 


And this VENDETTA against Spencer is totally irrational. What is the problem with his treatment of the Satellite data and the graphs you posted above? Spencer is and will be hero to me --- and his poor attempt to deflect questions with less than rigorous analysis is identical to the common sense I gave you above to show that we're not gonna be able to detect "moon warming" from a general nighttime temp record. If you WANTED to prove that -- you'd need more than a normal thermometer at a weather station.

When you're defending a scientific observation or theory -- sometimes you don't have TIME or MOTIVATION to spend days or weeks responding from 1st principles. That's not what I get paid to do -- nor does Spencer...


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2012)

I consider Spencer a hero too, flac. It would have been much easier for him to have not published all of his negative feedback cloud papers considering the amount of criticism he has taken from the 'consensus'.

Do you think any scientists pass muster with the extreme deniers like polarbear ?


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2012)

> After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin&#8211;Madison.[1] He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984,[2] where he later became a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.[1] After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UHA).




hey polarbear- I think Spencer earned the right to be called a NASA scientist by actually _being a NASA scientist_ for close to two decades.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 14, 2012)

IanC said:


> I consider Spencer a hero too, flac. It would have been much easier for him to have not published all of his negative feedback cloud papers considering the amount of criticism he has taken from the 'consensus'.
> 
> Do you think any scientists pass muster with the extreme deniers like polarbear ?



Obviously not.. 

It worries me when there's this much "piling on" over one of us "skeptics" actually BELIEVING that the GreenHouse effect is supportable science. The issue is how much we know about the MAGNITUDE of man-made contributions. And how perturbations to the atmospheric composition play out over time. 

I'm not ready to accept that the earth's surface temp is balanced on a knife edge that can be totally screwed by a 100ppm addition of CO2. There is a energy balance equation ala Trenberth --- it's just not as simple as a 1/2 dozen static rates of energy transfer.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I consider Spencer a hero too, flac. It would have been much easier for him to have not published all of his negative feedback cloud papers considering the amount of criticism he has taken from the 'consensus'.
> ...





exactly. the atmosphere and climate system is robust. it has had to deal with many other larger disturbances and it has come out just fine. there are many, many homeostatic mechanisms that return the system to balance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2012)

Polar, when you faith in "consensus", you can dispense with science and common sense


----------



## polarbear (Dec 15, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?
> 
> What is with these observations that *we can't detect* nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?
> 
> ...



So here we have another one that claims that he can work the St-B. equation backwards from watts per m^2 to 2 different yet specific  temperatures *T*_*h* _and *Tc* without making assumptions.
I`m still waiting on *IanC to show me* how he did that with k*(Th ^4  - Tc ^4 ) = Energy flux.

Now you are as obliged as IanC.
You have exactly the same problem as IanC with every equation relating to black body radiation,....



> WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?
> What is with these observations that *we can't detect* nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?
> 
> *The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2* and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. *We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most)*.


Actually it`s about 10 x  less than that 
*And that`s the whole point of what I wrtote...!!!!,... because...:

*If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized  how dumb that was what you just said*
Because *the moon`s "firefly watts / m^2" as you put it assigns it a black body temperature of *271 K*...and that it way more than the earth`s black body temperature which is only* 254 K*.

So now, tell me again  which of the 2 has the "firefly" heating effect ?
Full moon light or what 380 ppm CO2 could possibly "back-radiate" what it got from a 20 K cooler "black body" earth.

By the way I`m not the only engineer that noticed that Spencer is an idiot..so does almost every NASA engineer.
Spencer has been writing blogs for all these years claiming that the data he has been using was obtained by satellites using optical IR spectral sensors.

Some time *AFTER Nov. 2012 ,* when he had the Nov. 2012 average Spencer added  this URL into his "Yes Virginia" blog :

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

where he pretends he knew all along how these sensors really work:


> As of September 2012, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A)  flying on NASA&#8217;s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due  to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15 and  NOAA-18 AMSUs.
> 
> *They instead use* their own on-board precision redundant *platinum  resistance thermometers* calibrated to a laboratory reference standard  before launch.


But it took a whole bunch of "AGW denier" engineers to point out the difference between the sensor types...*yet he still insisted...*
*Till some more engineers*, very likely NASA engineers told Roy that  the on board sensors  do not work the way he assumed they do ...
*As late as Nov 2011 Spencer still e-mailed replies like this:*



http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf


> From: *Roy Spencer Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011* 5:49 PM To: Pierre Latour
> 
> *Why does a hand-held IR thermometer* measuring a clear sky apparent temperature of, say, 0 deg. F, increase its reading to, say, 40 deg. F when it is pointed at a low cloud, in both cases the ground air temperature being (say) 60 deg. F?
> 
> ...


Look how far off base you are :


> Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that *4mm sq *to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..


A 6 inch reflector telescope has a *182 cm^2 mirror*  that focuses everything to a focal point...which is where the high precision thermistor was placed...almost exactly the way the Platinum wire resistor ~ the same size of my thermistor is in the AMSU Satellites.

It`s not my experiment that :needs adjusting"...it`s you, & IanC etc...
Stick your finger into the eye-piece hole of a 6 inch reflector telescope which is pointed into the sun...that might just help you to make the necessary mental adjustments

What you said was not much better than the Poophead heckler who claims to be a physicist...he cooks frogs in a microwave oven that according to him have a "cold" radiation source...but subscribes to the IPCC & Roy Spencer myth that doubling 380 ppm CO2 to 760 ppm and [FONT=Arial, Geneva]0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2  [/SIZE][/FONT]can cause global warming.[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]

[/SIZE][/FONT]I can come up with *way more than 0.054 watts/m^2*  Poophead microwave oven frog   friers  if  I add up all the Radar station wattage *just by using what we have with the number of airports *we have since global warming statistics covering 1945 till today


There is enough "Poophead-frog fry" micro wave around,...You don`t even need an *active RADAR* transmitter any more to locate aircraft.
It can already be done *just using passive RADAR*...:

http://www.spiegel.de/video/testvideo-vom-passivradar-video-1221692.html


If You think that any of the *active* RADAR x-mitters & airports  is just "firefly wattage"...why don`t You sit in a run of the mill twin Cessna, point the nose at a fuel drum in front of it and switch on the on board RADAR ...and see what happens..!!! Do You think they put these warning stickers on there just for the fun of it to scare pilots and ground crews?


[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]I`m still laughing about all those idiots who fried their cameras when they tried to take a picture of the phased array RADAR dish we have at AFB Thule from 1/2 mile away.[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]


[/SIZE][/FONT]*And don`t even think twisting my words around* (again as IanC, poophead did so far ) and *you just* did before...*I`m NOT SAYING RADAR IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING..*...but it`s got more wattage than what Spencer, the IPCC etc can muster up with the 380 ppm CO2 "back-radiation" from a "black body" earth at 254 deg Kelvin
I`m using the world wide stray RADAR wattage to show how dumb it was what you just replied...and how dumb it is what Spencer, the IPCC etc are claiming.
The IPCC is already adding up farting cows, sheep etc  and their impact

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12895166



...which like 380 ppm CO2, is dwarfed if you would add up the wattage of each active micro wave transmitter on this planet.
Next thing the poophead "physicist" who cooks frogs in a "microwave" as he put it, will come back here and claim that microwave can not heat water vapor
 [FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2012)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?
> ...






snowing us under with yet another deluge of meaningless words polarbear? of should I say Cliff Clavin?

I skimmed your BS looking for your latest strawman distortion of what I have said



> So here we have another one that claims that he can work the St-B. equation backwards from watts per m^2 to 2 different yet specific temperatures Th and Tc without making assumptions.
> I`m still waiting on IanC to show me how he did that with k*(Th ^4 - Tc ^4 ) = Energy flux.
> 
> Now you are as obliged as IanC.
> You have exactly the same problem as IanC with every equation relating to black body radiation,....



sounds like you are already into early onset senility. Spencer's is a thought experiment. it is all assumptions and general principles. it shows that slowing radiation loss changes the equilibrium temperatures along the pathway from input to output. quite well thank you.

as I said before, when you want to attribute a statement to me, quote it. I am getting sick and tired of your lies.

oh, and by the way. no one here is obliged to your pompous ass.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2012)

from your beloved Latour-


> What I feel with a warm blanket is reduction in heat transfer rate, not higher temperature. (Skin may sense T change but mostly Q change.) A blanket reduces the conductive heat transfer coefficient, U, between my body and air. Since Q = UA*(T body &#8211; T air), Q decreases with U so long as T body > T air. Metabolism adjusts Q to hold T body constant 98.6F (37.0 C for Europeans). When you die, Q = 0, and T body = T air, no matter what U is or how thick the blanket is. Blankets, coats and gloves reduce the rate of heat loss from one&#8217;s body, and hence the required shivering metabolism rate to maintain 37C. They do not warm cold stones.



do you guys honestly expect me to believe that a naked person shivering in a 0C room has the same skin temperature as that same person with clothes on? hahahaha, especially if you shortcircuited the metabolism control and made the clothed person shiver? 

Spencer's thought experiment has a _constant_ energy input. if you change the rate of energy loss then you change the equilibrium temperatures along the pathway. it's as simple as that in a thought experiment. the real world is much more complicated *but* that mechanism is still one of the factors in play.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2012)

<<Polar Bear ---->>


> If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized how dumb that was what you just said
> Because the moon`s "firefly watts / m^2" as you put it assigns it a black body temperature of 271 K...and that it way more than the earth`s black body temperature which is only 254 K.
> 
> So now, tell me again which of the 2 has the "firefly" heating effect ?
> Full moon light or what 380 ppm CO2 could possibly "back-radiate" what it got from a 20 K cooler "black body" earth.



You do understand that blackbody temp only describes the peak of relatively broad ELECTROMAGNETIC emission spectrum? AND --- that there is NO thermal exchange of heat energy between the Earth and the Moon.  Right? THere is only only an exchange of photons capable of producing heat.

So in this case -- the diff of 20K is virtually irrevelent. The 20K shift only manifests in slight shift in spectrum of the emanating light and has no concept of whether the reciever of its EM is hotter or colder. EXCEPT THAT the Earth (if you have the numbers right)  is producing slightly LESS EM radiation energy at longer wavelengths. 

What's MORE important would be what percentage of those photons REACH the black bodies because of absorption in their composition.

 I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun. The incoming energy (in a vacuum) is not measurable by thermistors or thermometers, only by IR sensors. 

That SAME EM radiation is CONVERTED to heat by the Earth as a black body and (some) RE-RADIATED towards SPACE as IR once again.. ((This is the NUT of your problem)) where it CAN BE ABSORBED by  OBJECTS and gases (regardless of their temp) if they have the proper spectral absorption characteristics. YES VIRGINIA -- that's true. 

The "window" in the greenhouse allows broader spectrum GOING DOWN -- than coming back up. Thus the black body is pumped with an energy stream of a BROADER spectrum than it emits. Fortunately for Earth dwellers --- this results in a net heating effect at the surface. 

Now the earth is NOT a black body as a whole.. We just childishly model the SURFACE as a black body. So that atmosphere IS a THERMAL TRANSFER system as well as an EM filter. And in that SYSTEM heat WILL NOT FLOW from cooler to warmer layers. 

This is where the silly attacks on Spencer are based. Because he didn't spend enough time defending the science from 1st principles ASSUMING that his interrogator was aware of these things. And all the hub-bub is over the sloppiness of the explanation... But nothing Spencer said is obviously wrong. 
An IR sensor WILL read higher on a cloud than a star. And trying to ream him for that observation is pointless and somewhat psychotic..


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2012)

> I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun.




interesting idea. but isnt it the higher energy reflected sunlight that would heat the campfire, not just the IR actually being radiated by the moon?


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2012)

here is an interesting comment from somebody named Mike-



> Michael Hammer has suggested this as a line of reasoning that may help people discuss this.  If you don&#8217;t agree with the end conclusion (that greenhouse gases can&#8217;t warm earth because they are not hotter than Earth), point out exactly which step in the sequence is the one you think is wrong and explain it so we can understand why.
> 
> Do you agree that if you stand surrounded by cold objects (say a ring of huge ice blocks) you feel cold?
> Do you agree that the colder the object you are surrounded by the colder you feel?  eg: if they were blocks of frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of water ice would you feel colder?
> ...



of course the opposite situation occurs during the daytime when the atmosphere slows the heating of the surface by the Sun's emitted IR.

any comments?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 17, 2012)

IanC said:


> > I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The moon is a pretty inefficient reflector. I "believe" the Albedo is like .1 compared to the Earths .3 or .4 --- so MAYBE the black body radiation is even mildly significant to the overall optically reflected light. I don't know how the 2 contributions stack together. 

(The diff in Albedo is probably largely responsible for the slightly higher BBody temp for the moon)


----------



## polarbear (Dec 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> <<Polar Bear ---->>
> 
> 
> > If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized how dumb that was what you just said
> ...



First, be on notice, no matter how many insults you use to bloat up your gibberish might work with Virginias in a bar room, but not amongst engineers or in a research environment.

When I call your response gibberish, that is not an insult, but merely stating a fact. You, IanC and others  never even heard of Planck`s & St.Boltzmann or Kirchhoff before you started shooting your mouths off in this forum....let alone being able to understand and use any of these equations.
Now You sound like IanC, who converted power to energy while claiming he can do that without the time dimension.
Both of you still fail to understand what TEMPERATURE is as opposed to heat ENERGY.

I got a 3, 5 and a 7 year old who already know more than you or this "Virginia"...that Spencer keeps blogging about.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg0rVG4FQ48&feature=youtu.be"]My 3 little engineers - YouTube[/ame]



> The incoming energy (in a vacuum) is not measurable by thermistors or thermometers, _*only by IR sensors. *_


So all the engineers, including those that work at NASA have it all wrong.
What the hell do you think a platinum wire sensor on an AMSU satellite measures...
My 7 year old could already tell you that the primary measurement is in Ohms...even though these resistors are configured as a Wheatstone bridge at the input of a differential amp and the output is in Volts.



> So in this case -- the diff of 20K is virtually irrevelent
> has no *concept* of whether the reciever of its EM is hotter or colder


You have no concept  whatsoever how it does work.
We have been measuring heat sources hundreds of light years distant...which also have no "concept" what we are pointing at them..
The CONCEPT is, if the sensor is at the same temperature than the source then you don`t get a measurement at all !! 
Engineers prefer to cool the sensor below a temperature which is expected from the source because it`s easier to cancel out the errors  caused by the ambient lab environment....which we also would have to deal with if we would choose to allow the sensor to be warmer than the source...and then measure the rate of cooling instead of the rate of warming.


> There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature


Right...go patent it !
It`s yet another version of a perpetual motion energy generator that according to you can produce more ENERGY (in watts/ m^2) than the source impetus energy....with more parabolic mirror m^2 ergo more watts ???



> The "window" in the greenhouse allows broader spectrum GOING DOWN -- than coming back up.


While you are at it patent that too...
It might be called a "photon diode"
So far we only have diodes that do that with electrons..:







Engineers would go crazy designing the most amazing things with a photon diode. Of course you would say they already did,...lecturing me on the interrogation room "one way windows" you have seen on police story TV shows.
Gee, my kitchen window does the same thing when it`s darker outside...but not during the daytime..
I wonder, maybe my wife changes the window glass every morning ?

Engineers who point out the tons of crap that Spencer has spread all over the internet are "psychotic"...???

I would call somebody psychotic who first looks up what is on average the hottest day on record in Washington, then  schedules a senate meeting about Global Warming on that date, but has it arranged that the janitor turns off all the AC`s the night before...tells a lie, that the AC system is defective and then the presentation starts with the windows wide open after the mid day sun has baked Washington proper.

I don`t get paid giving you and your wannabee "physicists" physics for dummies lessons here...I`ld rather see to it that my 3 boys don`t wind up being as stupid as all  these Spencer`s Internet "Virginia`s",...all of whom are instant thermodynamic experts, thanks to Wikipedia


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2012)

polarbear said-


> Engineers who point out the tons of crap that Spencer has spread all over the internet are "psychotic"...???
> 
> I would call somebody psychotic who first looks up what is on average the hottest day on record in Washington, then schedules a senate meeting about Global Warming on that date, but has it arranged that the janitor turns off all the AC`s the night before...tells a lie, that the AC system is defective and then the presentation starts with the windows wide open after the mid day sun has baked Washington proper.





is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha


----------



## polarbear (Dec 20, 2012)

IanC said:


> is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha



Is it really possible that my 7 year old great grandson is smarter than You or Spencer...hahahaha...yes he is..!

Neither you and all the other instant forum heat radiation experts realize what kind of nonsense you`ve been writing in here about Spencer`s positive back radiation "energy feedback", pretending you have even the slightest understanding of any of the equations you copied&pasted in here.
That does not necessarily  make any of you the same kind of idiot Spencer is...unless you sat through physics lectures  like Spencer and still are too dumb to understand any of it after the principles of  thermodynamics have been thoroughly explained...
hahaha...but you are...because I`ve explained it to you over and over again and yet just like Spencer and his dumb daughter, the realtor  you still think that a black body which *radiates*  a *temperature *specific frequency profile  is the same process as *heating* a black body to a specific *temperature with radiation*...

Furthermore heating the CO2 in the air with "black body" radiation, then feeding back the CO2 absorbed IR as "back radiation" to increase the *GROUND* temperature even more is beyond hahahaha..


In case you haven`t noticed,...all the data that has been gathered to support this crap consists of *AIR*- not *GROUND* temperature data.

But you still don`t get it !! (hahahaha)

Heat radiation does indeed radiate *in a vacuum* equally in all directions...*but not so in air *or any other gas.

Light up a Bic lighter and hold your hand 3 inches off to one side...see you don`t get burned...
Now hold your hand 3 inches above the flame...hahaha...see what I mean?
Like I said my 7 year old is smarter than you.


He already knows what the "Schlieren Effekt" around the tip of a hot soldring gun looks like









And when I showed you what happens to a thermistor cooling below room temperature at the focal point of a 6 inch reflector when the telescope was pointed at a colder object instead of warming up as it`s supposed to according to Spencer you said hahaha and said it cooled off because there was a *closed (THERMAL R 40 !!!)  window* > 6 inches from the thermistor which was inside the tube, behind Saran wrap and behind the second focal mirror.

Another idiot had an issue that my thermistor was only a few millimeters in diameter...and was too dumb to figure out what area a six inch diameter reflector scope had focused on it....some more "hahaha" like that came from pooophysist  with the frog in the microwave oven crap.



> is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha


Is it really possible that *you do* ?????...*carnally ! * hahahahaha


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2012)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha
> ...





here we go again with your strawman misquotes of me, and your wild red herrings to veer off topic.

why are you bringing convection to a radiation fight? radiation goes in every available direction. period. convection is powered by gravity. warmer gases are lighter because they take up more volume per unit therefore they float upwards. why are you confusing radiation with convection?

as far as your solar oven/cooler/telescope youtube experiment....I said the temperature reading went down because the mirrors directed most of the radiation towards a cooler area where there was less back radiation returning to the thermistor. I asked you if you would be surprised if the temperature went up if you aimed your telescope at the fireplace but you refused to answer my question because you knew it would destroy your scenario.

I support Spencer's thought experiment in principle because it in fact works. If you are asking me my opinion on other aspects of atmospheric energy exchange, be specific and dont presume to know what my position is in advance.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2012)

polarbear said-


> Neither you and all the other instant forum heat radiation experts realize what kind of nonsense you`ve been writing in here about Spencer`s positive back radiation "energy feedback", pretending you have even the slightest understanding of any of the equations you copied&pasted in here.
> That does not necessarily make any of you the same kind of idiot Spencer is...unless you sat through physics lectures like Spencer and still are too dumb to understand any of it after the principles of thermodynamics have been thoroughly explained...
> hahaha...but you are...because I`ve explained it to you over and over again and yet just like Spencer and his dumb daughter, the realtor you still think that a black body which radiates a temperature specific frequency profile is the same process as heating a black body to a specific temperature with radiation...
> 
> Furthermore heating the CO2 in the air with "black body" radiation, then feeding back the CO2 absorbed IR as "back radiation" to increase the GROUND temperature even more is beyond hahahaha..





I actually paid attention in physics and that is why my comprehension of the basic principles is stronger than many on this message board. I try to deal with one issue at a time rather than race around like polarbear, mixing up one concept with another and getting confused in the process. 

radiation near the surface is a poor method of shedding heat because it is dispersed in all directions. therefore convection and latent heat from evaporation do much of the lifting to higher altitudes. at higher altitudes the tops of clouds release that heat through radiation. radiation is the *only* way for energy to escape the earth. 

the complexities are enormous but the bottom line is that highly ordered higher energy sunlight is absorbed by the earth where it is used to power natural systems which in turn return that energy as lower ordered, lower energy IR radiation to space. fully adhering to the second law of thermodynamics. it is obvious by life on earth, wind and ocean currents, etc that entropy can be either increased or decreased along the pathway as long as the final tally is correct.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 25, 2012)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No Ian ! You forgot that in the real world scenario convection by far  out-powers radiation and to remind you of that I posted the Schlieren  Effekt picture, because that`s what happens to almost all the heat  energy wattage the sun managed to impart to the earth`s surface.


> *I asked you if you would be surprised if the temperature went  up if  you aimed your telescope at the fireplace but you refused to  answer my  question*


No I did not refuse,...I simply missed out reading the posting where You  asked that question..of course the thermistor in my telescope would  scavenge the radiant heat from a fireplace...because heat energy does  add  from hotter to colder...not the other way around as in Spencer`s strange imagination.
Don`t get too obsessed with that Spencer crap. Take a break, man...! ...I did , it`s Christmas. We may be at logger heads over something which turns out to be totally insignificant in the large scheme of things, but this is a time for peace,...not war.
Consider Yourself included in my Christmas Greetings to all my friends `round this world..:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rxp-TLOT94&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1"]Manitoba Christmas 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

And pay attention (again) how my R-40 Kitchen windows look at -27 C in the morning,...and later at 13:00 at - 32 C...even though we have been cooking...no ice on the pane...not even any condensation. You get my point ? The 6 `` reflector  telescope used as a "solar fridge" ignored my window and *did react to the objects outside..!!!
*
  But on Christmas we should cut each other some slack...even in a bitter fight...we always did wherever I served as a military engineer even when I was on "Sapper" duty ,...and still do in my retirement years..even though it floored my wife just how much slack I do cut others on occasion..:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWUHJeDUWxk&feature=youtu.be"]If mom knew that.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

In that spirit, the same goes for You 
from "Polarbear", Long Plain First Nations
Manitoba Canada
Take a break from it and pay more attention to the things that matter most...
My best and sincerest Season`s Greetings *to You & Your`s*


----------



## IanC (Nov 22, 2016)

IanC said:


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




hi SSDD. you expressed an interest in Latour's criticism of Spencer. while we obviously debated this topic five years ago, I am willing to revisit it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2016)

Note: Measurement system for the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases in a laboratory scale

The radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases has been studied being based on computational simulations or the observation of the real atmosphere meteorologically. In order to know the greenhouse effect more deeply and to study it from various viewpoints, the study on it in a laboratory scale is important. We have developed a direct measurement system for the infrared back radiation from the carbon dioxide (CO2) gas. The system configuration is similar with that of the practical earth-atmosphere-space system. Using this system, the back radiation from the CO2 gas was directly measured in a laboratory scale, which roughly coincides with meteorologically predicted value.

*Well, looks like the physicists are agreeing that back radiation is real.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2016)

I have spent two hours reading this thread..  OMG!

lets get a few things straight.

To answer much of the back and forth about theoreticals...

*All matter radiates in all directions*.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

*Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones.* Violates the laws of thermal energy travel. The presence of increased mass will slow overall thermal release.  IE: a cooler object next to a warmer object. A cooler object can not warm a warmer object without external force applied!

*Entropy* (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

*Grey Bodies* are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

Dr Spencer is a luke-warmer and has been as long as I have known him. I do not speak for him.  Given the basics I have pointed out above, the current AGW hypothesis is a total failure.

The main point of contention I have with Dr Spencer, what is happening in our atmosphere, which is not allowing the theoretical AGW "hot spot" to materialize?  If CO2 was really slowing energy release where is the stored energy?

An ongoing study (actually three) is being put together by the Boulder Co Atmospheric Physics Lab. I am one of a select few who are reading the works.

The backscatter of re-emitted or reflected LWIR did not increase with CO2 increase, it decreased. This indicates a significant misunderstanding of how our atmosphere works.

The authors of the paper are now looking closely at water vapor energy absorption and retention. If what they suspect is true, CO2 will never cause a runaway effect due to water transport of energy in our atmosphere.

A net loss of energy directed towards the surface in the >6um bands was not expected but was observed.

The assumption that CO2 increase must cause increased back-scatter was looked at closely. They found that farms that use CO2 dispersers, to increase plant growth at ground level, actually caused cooling at ten feet above ground level as compared with like fields not using CO2 enhancement and they looked into what was happening to LWIR. They indicate that water vapor increased in the air, cooling occurred and downward LWIR >6um diminished.

Understand that DOWN WELLING (solar) LWIR is 2-6um and is not inhibited by CO2. Only the range above >6um is affected. When you look at the bandpass of blackbody LWIR you begin to understand how water is absorbing the energy before it reaches the earths surface and is carried away by conduction and convection. Cooling occurs in the region where water becomes vapor, near ground. It takes roughly 4 times the energy to warm water than it does air due to its mass. A loss of 1.3-2.2% down ward LWIR in the >6um band was noted from 150 feet as compared to ground level. This indicates that the energy is being absorbed in that region.

With all of the new studies coming out, which are turning our understanding of how our atmosphere works on its head, its hard to see AGW being even remotely valid today.

Dr Spencer and I disagree on the energy transport mechanism and why the earth is not presenting a hot spot. CO2 is not acting like he and others thought and its becoming painfully apparent to him.

As to the OP's "Back Radiation" or more precisely 'back-scatter or Rayleigh Scattering", as defined by EM theroy, it is real and provable.  What it does and the effect it has in our open atmosphere however, is an unanswered question.  One that lays the AGW hypothesis and all modeling waste.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2016)

SO what does increasing CO2 do to plants? It increases their systems metabolism and function. Farmers find that plants grow faster, healthier and use less over all water. The water they do emit, as they grow bigger and thus emit more water vapor, rises. Increased humidity levels capture more photons near ground keeping it from hitting the black body (earth).

Convection then takes over... And water holds the energy, unlike CO2 which almost immediately re-emits its photons. The energy is then released at top of troposphere or above cloud boundary and emits LWIR in 12-32um bandwidth as there was loss of energy (cooling) as it rises.

The end result is cooling and no stored energy in the atmosphere.  AGW game over...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2016)

Click for high-resolution image. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Now if there is no stored energy in the atmosphere, how is this possible? Do you understand the significance of three standard deviations?*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2016)

Sensor failure happened in late Aug early September.  Current graphing is total bull shit because it is wholly manufactured from unreliable data..  NASA just placed a new satellite into orbit and this new data will correct many of these problems in the next few months. Given the images from other satellites the data will be back within two standard deviations and near 30 year trend 'normal' very soon.

IF you think this is some how evidence of stored energy you would be wrong. IF Melting is occurring the energy is expended not stored. That is the thing about buffered systems, they don't like change and resist it.


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

From NSIDC:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
*Sluggish ice growth in the Arctic*
November 2, 2016


After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.

...

A primary culprit behind the slow growth is that sea surface temperatures in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Barents and Kara Seas along the Eurasian coast, as well as the East Siberian Sea, were above average. The open water areas in the highest latitudes at the date of the minimum in September had only recently formed and there was little input of solar radiation so far north. So those waters were just above the freezing point. When the atmosphere cooled in September, ice formed rapidly. However, further south, the sea ice had retreated far earlier in the season and a lot of solar energy was absorbed through the summer. This ocean heat inhibited the growth of ice in these regions. Finally toward the end of October, the surface ocean heat began to dissipate, triggering ice formation. However, even by October 25, sea surface temperatures were above average in these areas (Figure 2b).

The atmospheric circulation also played a role. October air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) were unusually high over most of the Arctic Ocean (Figure 2c), especially over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and over the East Greenland Sea (up to 8 degrees Celsius or 14 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1981 to 2010 average). In part, these high temperatures resulted from high sea surface temperatures over the open water areas. However, unusually high sea level pressure centered over northern Scandinavia brought southerly winds from the East Siberian and Barents Seas, contributing to high air temperatures in these regions. In turn, unusually low pressure on the Pacific side centered roughly over the western Bering Sea brought southerly winds over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, contributing to unusually high air temperature there. The combined effects of the high sea surface temperatures and atmospheric circulation led to a pattern in which for the Arctic, unusual warmth in October extended from the surface through a deep layer of the atmosphere (Figure 2d).

As noted in our post last month, the Arctic is losing it’s oldest and thickest ice. A new animation from NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio shows this loss over the past 30 years.
*******************************************

No mention of a possible satellite problem.  And, of course, to produce these observations, you'd require simultaneous and synchronous failures in two satellites (for temperature and ice coverage) and something to throw off all the data collected at the surface.


----------

