# Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.



## polarbear (Mar 27, 2017)

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to  30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec)  in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.


----------



## cnm (Mar 27, 2017)

What happens when less heat is radiated to space?


----------



## Mousterian (Mar 27, 2017)

You have a rather confused (and confusing!) understanding of the mechanics of GW, 'bear.
Suggest you read (and understand, whatever that my require of you):
Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

These people actually know their subject, however unpalatable their conclusions may be to you.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 27, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
> ...


Anybody who thinks energy can move from colder to warmer media did not take any chemistry ever, neither in high school nor in college.

Funny !!


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 27, 2017)

The sun is shrinking at 5 feet per hour.
Global warming my $$$


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 27, 2017)

The Earth's climate is warming.

Most people attribute this to the Sun.

We don't know why.

We just know it is happening.

We don't know if the insects, animals, and humans on the Earth can do anything about it.  I am betting that we cannot.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2017)

If by "most people attribute this to the sun" then you're running with a crowd of hermits.  Most people attribute this to carbon dioxide produced by humans burning coal and petroleum.  We CAN do something about it, but it is going to take a big effort and it is going to take time.  If we do NOT do anything about it, its going to be very bad for our children and theirs.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 27, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
> After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
> The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to  30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec)  in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.



Okay so far. 7000 joules. Don't overdo the precision.

7000J/3600S/0.0292m^2 = 67 W/m^2. So far, so good.



> With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2



That's going to vary considerably as the temperature cools..

0.9 * 304.5^4 *5.67E-08 = 438 W/m^2 (warmer can) (emissivity of aluminum = 0.9)

0.9 * 300^4 * 5.67E-08 = 413 W/m^2 (cooler can)

0.9 * 294.5^4 * 5.67E-08 = 383 W/m^2 (room)

So, 55W/m^2 net radiation loss at the start, 30W/m^2 at the end.

If conduction losses are added to radiation losses, that would match the 67 W/m^2 average loss, so the experiment is consistent with backradiation. Without the 383 W/m^2 backradiation contribution, your can would have been losing 400+W/m^2, and would have been starting to freeze by the end of the hour.



> I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
> If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2



Where did you get 1.8 W/m^2 for the backradiation contribution? That's totally wrong, so the conclusion is totally wrong.



> Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.



Quite the contrary. Your can did not start to freeze, hence your experiment proves backradiation was present.


----------



## Divine Wind (Mar 27, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> The Earth's climate is warming.
> 
> Most people attribute this to the Sun.
> 
> ...


Which is why we need to move the smarter people to a different planet.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 27, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.



Actually, poop4brains, your fantasies about what scientists "_know_" is based entirely on your ignorance and stupidity.

In the real world, from, straight from the darling of the deniers, Dr. Roy Spencer.....

*Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box*
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010




*Laypersons are no doubt confused by all of our recent esoteric discussions regarding radiative transfer, and whether global warming is even possible from a theoretical standpoint.

So, let’s take a break and return to the real world, and the experiments you can do yourself to see evidence of the “greenhouse effect”.*

*One of the claims of greenhouse and global warming theory that many people find hard to grasp is that there is a large flow of infrared radiation downward from the sky which keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

Particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of adding a greenhouse gas to a COLD atmosphere, and that causing a temperature increase at the surface of the Earth, which is already WARM. This, of course, is what is expected to happen from adding more carbon dioixde to the atmosphere: “global warming”.

Well, it is one of the marvels of our electronic age that you can buy a very sensitive handheld IR thermometer for only $50 and observe the effect for yourself.

These devices use a thermopile, which is an electronic component that measures a voltage which is proportional to the temperature difference across the thermopile.

If you point the device at something hot, the higher-intensity IR radiation heats up the hot-viewing side of the thermopile, and the IR thermometer displays the temperature it is radiating at (assuming some emissivity…my inexpensive unit is fixed at e=0.95).

If you instead point it at the cold sky, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile loses IR radiation, cooling it to a lower temperature than the inside of the thermopile.




For instance, last night I drove around pointing this thing straight up though my sunroof at a cloud-free sky. I live in hilly territory, the ambient air temperature was about 81 F, and at my house (an elevation of 1,000 feet), I was reading about 34 deg. F for an effective sky temperature.

If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August.

What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills.

The IR thermometer was measuring different strengths of the greenhouse effect, by definition the warming of a surface by downward IR emission by greenhouse gases in the sky. This reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface (and lower atmosphere) to space, and makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.

If you have a day where there are patches of blue and clouds, you can point the thermometer at the clouds and pick up a warmer reading than the surrounding blue sky.

I did it this morning (see photo, above). When I moved from a view of the blue sky to the patch of clouds, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile became warmer…even though the thermopile is already at a higher temperature than the sky. The display would read a few degrees warmer than the reading looking at blue sky.

If you perform this experiment yourself, you need to be careful about the elevation angle above the horizon you are pointing being about the same. Even in a clear sky, as you move from the zenith (overhead), down toward the horizon the path length of sky the IR thermometer sees increases, and so you measure radiation from lower altitudes, which are warmer. This makes the effective sky temperature goes up. (This is ALSO evidence of the greenhouse effect, since looking at the sky above the horizon is like adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere overhead. The (apparent) concentration of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere goes up, and so does the intensity of the back radiation.)

Even earlier in the morning, about 5:30, the middle-level clouds were thicker, and I measured a sky temperature in the 50’s F. We will see more evidence of that using air temperatures, below.

This shows that the addition of an IR absorber/emitter, even at a cold temperature (the middle level clouds were probably somewhere around 30 deg. F), causes a warm object (the thermopile) to warm even more! This is the effect that some people claim is impossible.

Remember, the IR thermometer calibrated temperature output is based upon real temperatures, the temperatures on either side of the thermopile.

And if you think this is just an effect of some sunlight reflecting off the cloud….read on.

Evidence from The Box

I have been seeing the same effect in “The Box”, which is my attempt to use the greenhouse effect to warm and cool a thin aluminum plate coated with high-emissivity paint, that is heavily insulated from its surroundings in order to isolate just the radiative transfers of energy between the sky and the plate. This can be considered a clumsy, inefficient version of the IR thermometer. But now, *I* am making actual temperature measurements.

The following plot (click on it for the full-size version) shows data from the last 2 days, up through this morning’s events. The plate gets colder at night than the ambient temperature because it “sees” the cold sky, and is insulated from heat flow from the surrounding air and ground.




In the lower right, I have also circled where thin middle-level clouds came over, emitting more IR radiation downward than the clear sky, and causing a warming of the plate. Since the plate is mostly isolated from heat exchanges with the surrounding air and warm ground, it responds faster than the ambient air temperature to the intensity of “back radiation” downwelling from the sky.

When I woke this morning before sunrise, around 5:30, I saw these mid-level clouds (I used to be a certified aviation weather observer), I measured about 50 deg. F from the handheld IR thermometer.

This supports what people already experience…cloudy nights are, on average, warmer than clear nights. The main reason is that clouds emit more IR downward, change the (im)balance between upwelling and downwelling IR, and if you change the balance between energy flows in and out of an object, its temperature will change. Conservation of Energy, they call it.

(WARNING: a technical detail about the above measurements and their importance to greenhouse theory follows.)

What this Means for the Miskolczi “Aa=Ed” Controversy

Except for relatively rare special cases, the total amount of IR energy downwelling from the sky (Ed) will ALWAYS remain less than the amount upwelling from below and absorbed by the sky (Aa). As long as (1) the atmosphere has some transparency to IR radiation (which it does), and (2) the atmosphere is colder than the surface (which it is), then Ed will be less than Aa…even though they are usually close to one another, since temperatures are always adjusting to minimize IR flux divergences and convergences.

But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 27, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
> ...


Yes the 1.8 W/m^2 is actually less than what they claim:




It's you who has the math all wrong.
_(emissivity of aluminum = 0.9)
0.9 * 300^4 * 5.67E-08 = 413 W/m^2 (cooler can)_
According to you the cooling rate of the water in the Alu can is supposed to be "adjusted" for the emissivity.
As if the emissivity of the pop can that the water was in did not slow the cooling process down by a factor of 0.9 already. Where would I get a pop can that has an emissivity of 1 ???
The other blunder you committed was picking the temperature after the can had cooled for an entire hour to get your numbers.
Worst of all is your statement:
_That's going to vary considerably as the temperature cools.._
The can  transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec)  in 1 hour to the air.
At the start the caloric content was 1665 calories more than after 1 hour and while it did loose these 1665 calories (6996 Watt seconds) during this hour it happened in this universe obeying all physics laws in it.
So it is entirely legitimate to say that a body that emits 66.5 W/m^2 will have emitted exactly the same amount of energy as a body with a 0.0292 m^2 surface  that lost 6996 watt seconds in 1 hour.
If you got a problem with that then you got a problem with everything else. Like how much energy you can get out of a battery or a tank of fuel. It won't matter if the rate of consumption varies while you consume the energy the total available energy you used was how many K or M watt hours you had in the reservoir.
According to you a battery or a tank of fuel contains more energy the slower the rate of consumption and less energy at a higher rate of consumption.
And then there is the most ridiculous thing you said:
_Okay so far. 7000 joules. Don't overdo the precision.
7000J/3600S/0.0292m^2 = 67 W/m^2. So far, so good._
No, that is not good it was equal to 66.5 W/m^2 not 67!
And the precision was way better than any of the fractional degree crap you guys quote after it's been washed several times by "averaging"
I have used my measuring measuring calipers to machine metal parts to within 1/1000's of an inch.
My scale is accurate to within 10 milligrams and my thermometer is accurate within 1/10th of a degree.
On top of that I have done a whole pile of Calorimetry and differential Calorimetry determinations during my employ. Only somebody who has no clue how these analysis are performed would deny that level of precision and claim they "overdo the precision"
When I looked at this thread before I signed in and the idiot I blocked was visible I noticed that idiotic picture where Spencer pointed an IR thermometer at the sky and got some ridiculously high temperature...but on the picture you can't read the display. When I did that at a ground temperature of + 37 C I got a sky temperature of -18.5 C and I did post that a couple of years ago...and you commented on it, saying that was expected


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 27, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
> ...





polarbear said:


> Yes the 1.8 W/m^2 is actually less than what they claim:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, poop4brains, your delusional denier cult pseudo-science OP and this last demented post all got *completely debunked* by actual real world experimental scientific evidence (two different experiments, actually) provided by a somewhat sceptical climate scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, in post #10. 

Now you are just making yourself look even more retarded than you always do.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 27, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Yes the 1.8 W/m^2 is actually less than what they claim:



No, totally wrong. 1.8 W/m^2 is not the backradiation. "Radiative forcing" is the net increase in energy absorbed by the earth. It's in the neighborhood of the change in the backradiation, not the total backradiation.

Since you botched that so totally, your results are a total botch.

Again, without backradiation, your can would have cooled enough over the hour by radiation enough to begin freezing (assuming no conduction either way). It didn't start freezing because backradiation was adding energy to it, and thus reducing the overall heat loss. Thus, your experiment was kind of a demonstration of backradiation.



> As if the emissivity of the pop can that the water was in did not slow the cooling process down by a factor of 0.9 already.



0.9 emissivity slows down the emission by 10%, not 90%.



> Where would I get a pop can that has an emissivity of 1 ???



Blacken it with soot. That will get you close. However, it doesn't matter. It has very little net effect, being it also effects incoming backradiation.



> The other blunder you committed was picking the temperature after the can had cooled for an entire hour to get your numbers.



I calculated numbers at beginning and end. Did you even read my post?



> So it is entirely legitimate to say that a body that emits 66.5 W/m^2 will have emitted exactly the same amount of energy as a body with a 0.0292 m^2 surface  that lost 6996 watt seconds in 1 hour.



Yes, that average heat loss rate is correct, and I said so. It's a useful ballpark figure.



> If you got a problem with that then you got a problem with everything else. Like how much energy you can get out of a battery or a tank of fuel. It won't matter if the rate of consumption varies while you consume the energy the total available energy you used was how many K or M watt hours you had in the reservoir.



I had no problem with it, which would be why I wrote "7000J/3600S/0.0292m^2 = 67 W/m^2. So far, so good." Please stop pretending that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said.



> And then there is the most ridiculous thing you said:
> _Okay so far. 7000 joules. Don't overdo the precision.
> 7000J/3600S/0.0292m^2 = 67 W/m^2. So far, so good._
> No, that is not good it was equal to 66.5 W/m^2 not 67!



You claimed a surface area of the can of 292.3 cm^2. That kind of precision is laughable, considering the other parameters. You didn't account for conduction. You didn't account for the bottom of the can being on the tabletop, which meant the table under it soon warmed to match the can, and the radiation exchange there was a wash.



> And the precision was way better than any of the fractional degree crap you guys quote after it's been washed several times by "averaging"



So you don't understand basic statistics, check.



> I have used my measuring measuring calipers to machine metal parts to within 1/1000's of an inch.
> My scale is accurate to within 10 milligrams and my thermometer is accurate within 1/10th of a degree.
> On top of that I have done a whole pile of Calorimetry and differential Calorimetry determinations during my employ. Only somebody who has no clue how these analysis are performed would deny that level of precision and claim they "overdo the precision"



4-digit precision, like you did with the surface area, is totally pointless when major parts of your experiment are a fudge factor. Overall, you didn't even manage 1-digit precision.



> When I looked at this thread before I signed in and the idiot I blocked was visible I noticed that idiotic picture where Spencer pointed an IR thermometer at the sky and got some ridiculously high temperature...but on the picture you can't read the display. When I did that at a ground temperature of + 37 C I got a sky temperature of -18.5 C and I did post that a couple of years ago...and you commented on it, saying that was expected



Spencer was right when he measured about 0C. You measured something colder. it was backradiation both times. The sky isn't always the same temperature.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 28, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
> ...



You're either sandbagging here and you KNOW the truth or you have a bad case of purposely disregarding Radiative Physics.  In the surface to sky RADIATIVE transfer of LW IR -- the colder sky ALWAYS WINS.  The surface is losing thermal energy thru conduction, convection,and *EM radiation 24 hours a day.*  So "back radiation" violates NOTHING.   And the back radiation is only part of the measurement of the EM surface RADIATION loss.

The transfer of LWIR is a simple subtraction, backed by some more complex geometry to determine the radiation surfaces and which elements are actually in an optical path of that surface. So if the sky becomes slightly "warmer" by harboring gases capable of storing and releasing LWIR towards the ground -- it will only reduce the net loss to the sky by a small amount.

The "2 can" experiment you proposed cannot possibly recreate a realistic RADIATIVE "heat" exchange. Because of the small "geometry" of each other in total field of view where EM radiation can source from. And the materials involved.  Most IR from the sky wouldn't even IMPINGE on the majority of the can surface.

Back rad is an instantaneous POWER calculation.  NOT an energy calculation..


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2017)

The bogus OP and this whole bullshit thread got totally debunked in post #10. Only hard-core denier cult retards are still trying to push this anti-science nonsense.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.



They do?  Can you show us one?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
> ...



There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop.  If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.  Now, if the ambient temperature is 45F or below, with the disk pointed at clear open sky, put a little container of water at the focal point...it will freeze.  Again, if back radiation were a reality, that water would not be freezing when the ambient temperature is 13F above the freezing point.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2017)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
> ...



Practically all of them...the oregon petition is chock full of engineers who deal with actual physics all day every day...very few actual engineers are on the AGW crazy train but it seems that the train is well supplied with fake engineers.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2017)

The Oregon Petition makes no statement about heat gain by backradiation and makes absolutely no attempt to verify that signers are what they say they are.  As far as a survey go, it's complete ratshit.  And if you think even the bogus numbers on the petition are a significant sample of the world's engineers, you need a reality check.

Let's see a consensus among engineers and/or scientists who state that backradiation cannot or does not result in surface warming.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 30, 2017)

Crick said:


> If by "most people attribute this to the sun" then you're running with a crowd of hermits.  Most people attribute this to carbon dioxide produced by humans burning coal and petroleum.  We CAN do something about it, but it is going to take a big effort and it is going to take time.  If we do NOT do anything about it, its going to be very bad for our children and theirs.


 That's typical doomsday cult drivel.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2017)

Crick said:


> If by "most people attribute this to the sun" then you're running with a crowd of hermits.  Most people attribute this to carbon dioxide produced by humans burning coal and petroleum.  We CAN do something about it, but it is going to take a big effort and it is going to take time.  If we do NOT do anything about it, its going to be very bad for our children and theirs.



Guess you blissfully unaware that over 100 papers from 2016 alone provide a strong ling between solar forcing and climate change...guess in your insulated glassy eyed chanting cult bubble, reality doesn't steal its way in very often.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2017)

Crick said:


> The Oregon Petition makes no statement about heat gain by backradiation and makes absolutely no attempt to verify that signers are what they say they are.  As far as a survey go, it's complete ratshit.  And if you think even the bogus numbers on the petition are a significant sample of the world's engineers, you need a reality check.



I didn't say that it did...and you wackos have put a great deal of effort into the oregon portion and found a dozen or so fakes among over 30,000 signatories...

And few actual engineers believe back radiation actually exists, and certainly couldn't heat anything otherwise, engineers would find some way to put all that energy to use...alas, they can't, and they haven't because it doesn't exist.  it is no more than a pie in the sky verse of your endless glassy eyed chant.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2017)

So, you can't find any engineers or scientists stating that backradiation causes no surface heating.  Got it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2017)

Why is this fraudulent bullshit thread....which was completely debunked in post #10....still limping along, going nowhere?

*Your drivel got debunked, you lying denier cult cretins, so get over it already!*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, you can't find any engineers or scientists stating that backradiation causes no surface heating.  Got it.



And you can't find the first piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that it does...why would I need to find anyone who says that it doesn't....and again, the tens of thousands of scientists on the oregon petition disagree with your minority of scientists who CLAIM, without the first piece of actual evidence that it does.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2017)

I'm afraid the responsibility of a demonstration would be on your shoulders.  Backradiation has been directly observed.  The contention that radiation could be absorbed by a surface but not raise its temperature violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.  You're an ignorant fool and your conceptions of science basics are blithering nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2017)

Crick said:


> I'm afraid the responsibility of a demonstration would be on your shoulders.  Backradiation has been directly observed.  The contention that radiation could be absorbed by a surface but not raise its temperature violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.  You're an ignorant fool and your conceptions of science basics are blithering nonsense.



No crick...due to your very limited education, you have been fooled by instrumentation into believing that back radiation has been directly observed...no discrete band of radiation from any of the so called greenhouse gasses has ever been measured coming from the atmosphere with an instrument at ambient temperature...such measurements have only been made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere...therefore, they are not measurements of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface...they are measurements of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler surface....a great deal of what you call evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis is nothing more than evidence of how easily climate scientists are fooled by instrumentation..


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2017)

Backradiation has been measured directly.  Your contentions regarding radiative heat transfer are complete nonsense.  You are the fool.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop.  If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.



No, totally wrong.

A parabolic reflector such as the solar oven only focuses parallel radiation, such as that coming from a distant near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, hence the solar oven won't focus it.

That's high school level physics. You don't even rise to that level. It's impressive how you manage to fail so completely at every single branch of science. You're like a renaissance man of failure. If you say anything on any topic, it's likely that the exact opposite is true.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop.  If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.
> ...



You clearly didn't pass high school physics...this time, you demonstrate that you  have no idea what diffuse radiation is...Sunlight itself reaching the surface is known as diffuse sky radiation...and the parabolic reflector gathers that diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam which could be called parallel.

Just to test your harebrained hypothesis, hairball, I set my solar oven up a few minutes ago, pointed it at clear sky and predictably, the temperature started dropping...I then held a radiant heater 8 feet above the reflector...a heater designed to very efficiently diffuse heat...the temperature stopped dropping almost immediately.

Then just to test my conclusions...I brought the reflector into the garage, and aimed it at my radiant heater 15 feet away...the temperature at the focal point predictably started increasing.

If backradiation were a reality, the temperature at the focal point of the reflector would not drop and you certainly could not freeze water at that focal point when the ambient temperature is in the 40's.  Like it or not, that is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that back radiation is not happening...


----------



## polarbear (Mar 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop.  If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.
> ...


"failing completely at every branch of science"...Speaking for yourself aren't you
High school level physics would not teach that thermal imaging is impossible. 





 Only a bozo like you would claim that objects emit parallel IR.
The entire field of view in a solar fridge is the reflector and is the background the interior of the solar fridge is radiating it's IR into. If the field of view includes a higher # of watts per the area of the reflector, the solar fridge will obey the StB law accordingly, no matter if the IR is diffused or parallel. 
Reading back the warmer's favorite question to you: Where else would these photons go?
Not long ago you argued that the all the down dwelling CO2 IR has to be added to the energy an absorber has to emit....and not just that but an entire radiation echo series. Would that be parallel IR now?
No matter what the subject is you go way beyond reduction ad absurdum into absurdumb


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 31, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Not long ago you argued that the all the down dwelling CO2 IR has to be added to the energy an absorber has to emit....and not just that but an entire radiation echo series. Would that be parallel IR now?



It's just optical propagation. In an Atmos Physics book the problem is presented as an atmos that radiates as a surface parallel to the ground. And at the FAR FIELD of a diffuse emitter -- that's an OK 'first approximation".  But you're right, if it's not a "far field" simplication, any realistic IR surface is not truely parallel..  Cheap handheld IR thermometers have "optics" that can give different angles of acceptance for different spatial accuracy of objects at distances. 

BTW -- the results from that 1st approximation in the Atmos Physic books -- gives a number that's VERY close to the generally accepted 1.1DegC/CO2 doubling (or somewhere in the range of 3.5W/m2).


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2017)

In the real world beyond the borders of Dumbfuck Denierstan.....

*The Atmosphere’s Energy Budget
NASA
Just as the incoming and outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface must balance, the flow of energy into the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal flow of energy out of the atmosphere and back to space. Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59 percent of the incoming solar energy. If the atmosphere is radiating this much, it must be absorbing that much. Where does that energy come from?*

*Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy. Evaporation and convection transfer 25 and 5 percent of incoming solar energy from the surface to the atmosphere. These three processes transfer the equivalent of 53 percent of the incoming solar energy to the atmosphere. If total inflow of energy must match the outgoing thermal infrared observed at the top of the atmosphere, where does the remaining fraction (about 5-6 percent) come from? The remaining energy comes from the Earth’s surface.*

*Natural Greenhouse Effect
Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface.*

*




The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS017-E-13859.)*

*When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.*

*Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.*

*Effect on Surface Temperature
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.*

*




On average, 340 watts per square meter of solar energy arrives at the top of the atmosphere. Earth returns an equal amount of energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and by radiating heat (thermal infrared energy). Most solar energy is absorbed at the surface, while most heat is radiated back to space by the atmosphere. Earth's average surface temperature is maintained by two large, opposing energy fluxes between the atmosphere and the ground (right)—the greenhouse effect. NASA illustration by Robert Simmon, adapted from Trenberth et al. 2009, using CERES flux estimates provided by Norman Loeb.)*

*Why doesn’t the natural greenhouse effect cause a runaway increase in surface temperature? Remember that the amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than its temperature rises—outgoing energy increases with the fourth power of temperature. As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).*

*Some of the heat escapes directly to space, and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth’s distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.*[/FONT]


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You clearly didn't pass high school physics...this time, you demonstrate that you  have no idea what diffuse radiation is...Sunlight itself reaching the surface is known as diffuse sky radiation...



Don't try to weasel out of your hilariously stupid physics failure by switching definitions of "diffuse". I made it clear I was using a definition of diffuse that means "parallel". You're now switching to a different defnition of "diffuse". Highly dishonest of you, as usual.

To avoid confusion, don't use the word "diffuse". Use the words "scattered" and "parallel". A parabolic reflector only focuses parallel radiation. Backradiation is scattered, not parallel, so it's not focused.



> then held a radiant heater 8 feet above the reflector...a heater designed to very efficiently diffuse heat...the temperature stopped dropping almost immediately.



So you aimed a near point source of heat into the oven, and it warmed up. Duh. What did you expect? Holy shit, you're stupid.

Oh, nice switcharoo to an entirely different definition of diffuse. You're skilled at that kind of deception.



> If backradiation were a reality, the temperature at the focal point of the reflector would not drop and you certainly could not freeze water at that focal point when the ambient temperature is in the 40's.  Like it or not, that is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that back radiation is not happening...



This isn't a discussion. This is you getting schooled on how basic phsyics works. Parabolic reflectors only focus parallel radiation, they don't focus scattered radiation, so they won't focus backradiation. Raging about your failure won't change that. You're just wrong.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2017)

polarbear said:


> High school level physics would not teach that thermal imaging is impossible



No, only deniers teach that. After all, your side says photons from a cold sky can't touch a warmer object, and therefore IR imaging cameras are impossible. Given that those cameras exist, maybe you should take that as a clue that your claims are totally wrong.



> Only a bozo like you would claim that objects emit parallel IR.



That's obviously not true for most objects. Interestingly, it is true for the solar oven.



> The entire field of view in a solar fridge is the reflector and is the background the interior of the solar fridge is radiating it's IR into.



As you seem to need help, let me explain how the solar oven works.

Parallel reflectors work in two ways. They focus incoming parallel radiation on to the focal point/line, and they take radiation coming out from the focal point and send it out as a parallel beam. I take it you understand searchlights send out parallel beams, right?

Point the oven at a cold sky, there's no parallel radiation coming in, so it's not focusing anything, while it is spitting out a little IR energy. Energy out is more than energy in, so there's some cooling at the focal point. Only a tiny amount, though, and it will be swamped by ambient heat leaking in unless you're very careful.



> If the field of view includes a higher # of watts per the area of the reflector, the solar fridge will obey the StB law accordingly, no matter if the IR is diffused or parallel



All matter always radiates according to the S-B law. You just implied the S-B law is turned off in certain situations. Your theory needs work.



> Reading back the warmer's favorite question to you: Where else would these photons go?



I can't figure out what you're talking about, and I doubt anyone else can. 



> Not long ago you argued that the all the down dwelling CO2 IR has to be added to the energy an absorber has to emit....and not just that but an entire radiation echo series. Would that be parallel IR now?



Nor can I figure out what that is supposed to mean.



> No matter what the subject is you go way beyond reduction ad absurdum into absurdumb



No matter what the subject is, you're consistently terrible at communicating your point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
> ...



*Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one.*

What about people who say matter above 0K radiates in all directions,
even if the target is warmer than the emitter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> ...



*Anybody who thinks energy can move from colder to warmer media*

The walls in my house don't send photons toward me, because I'm warmer?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> ...


What about them?
It's one thing to radiate,  but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.
Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?
Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?
Or heat a ladle of molten steel with a blow dryer?
Just because you insist using the StB equation in a way it was never intended.
E= σ*300^4 tells you only how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 0 deg Kelvin environment.
E(tr)= σ*(300^4 - 270^4) tells you how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 270 deg K environment.
But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.
And while you applied the StB equation you ignored that it can only radiate that much against a 0 deg K steradian area not against a 300 deg K area.
*What you really are implying* is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4)  and came up with the negative energy these paranormal investigators use as proof that ghosts exist


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.*

Matter that absorbs energy warms up. Pretty simple stuff.

*Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?*

No.
I would say that a mass that is absorbing energy cools more slowly than a mass that is not absorbing energy.
*
Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?*

Adding energy doesn't heat it up? You'll have to explain your logic here.

*But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.*

Yes, the energy sent from the 270K body to the 300K body is the reason for the slowed net energy loss from the 300K body.

The energy loss is NOT slowed by the 300K body dialing back its emission. 

*What you really are implying** is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4)  and came up with the negative energy*

The negative result is the net energy loss by the cooler object. A "negative loss" would be the energy gained by the cooler object.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?
If you can't understand that the cooler air/propane flame < 2000 C cools down the steel that's been heated with a ~ 3500 C oxy-acetylene torch then there is no way I want to waste any more time on you.
Go in a welding shop  and tell them what you just told me. They might come up with better choice of words
than I could for ????? hollywood movie welders like you. I'm just guessing you must have seen that being done  in one of these idiotic movies


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.*
> 
> Matter that absorbs energy warms up. Pretty simple stuff.
> 
> ...





polarbear said:


> So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?
> If you can't understand that the cooler air/propane flame < 2000 C cools down the steel that's been heated with a ~ 3500 C oxy-acetylene torch then there is no way I want to waste any more time on you.



Jeeeez...you are SO retarded, poop4brains! Of course he doesn't "_think that_". He explained the point of this fairly clearly.

Let's try to make it even simpler for you, you poor confused moron.

If you take some steel that *has been* heated to 3500 degrees and it is just sitting there in a crucible or something, it will immediately start to cool off, partly by conduction, traveling through whatever it is touching into the general surrounding environment, but also by radiating away heat as IR radiation, which is why molten steel at those temperatures glows white hot, then cools to red hot, and then continues to radiate heat you can feel for a long time....so, even if the steel were still almost 3500 degrees hot, if you then apply a 2000 degree propane flame to it, that won't heat it up any further, *but it will slow down the rate at which the steel is cooling, which means the rate at which it is radiating or conducting heat away into a room temperature space.*

Think you can manage to grasp that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?*

You think adding the energy from the propane torch has no effect on molten steel?
You're starting to sound a bit like SSDD.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


For the last time: If you blow the cooler flame of a propane flame at 3000 deg C hot molten steel you will cool it down !!!! (There is no energy added)....And the combustion gas of the propane air mixture will get heated. The molten steel adds energy to the combustion gas, not the other way around.
Same thing happens in a 3000 deg tube furnace. If you blow hot air through it it will come out hotter while the furnace would cool down unless you keep heating it to stay at 3000 deg.
No f-ng way does the hot air "add" energy to the furnace !
(Btw thats exactly  how they tested the SR71 skin material, with the hot air that came out of a tube furnace...which was a pipe filled with red hot steel balls & blowing highly compressed air through it at super sonic speed )
Seems to me you never seen a tube furnace, arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch.
No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation
*E*= *σ*(270^4 - 300^4) = - 150 W/m^2*
So go ahead and solve the  -150 "negative energy" for a Temperature. There is no calculator, computer, slide rule or log table that would allow you to do that.
Maybe all the above have been rigged by "denialists" and/or Russian hackers eeh?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


All debunked in post #41. The poor confused retard, poop4brains, is just too stupid to comprehend what everybody else is talking about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*For the last time: If you blow the cooler flame of a propane flame at 3000 deg C hot molten steel you will cool it down !!!!*

Is something keeping the molten steel at 3000 C?

*No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation*

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Don't try to weasel out of your hilariously stupid physics failure by switching definitions of "diffuse". I made it clear I was using a definition of diffuse that means "parallel". You're now switching to a different defnition of "diffuse". Highly dishonest of you, as usual.



You are a first class idiot..there is no definition of diffuse that means parallel...

difffuse - verb (used with object), diffused, diffusing.
1.to pour out and spread, as a fluid.
2.to spread or scatter widely or thinly; disseminate.
3.Physics. to spread by diffusion.



mamooth said:


> To avoid confusion, don't use the word "diffuse". Use the words "scattered" and "parallel". A parabolic reflector only focuses parallel radiation. Backradiation is scattered, not parallel, so it's not focused



Sorry hairball...sunlight is not parallel....and a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation..and here, from wiki....parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam...need a definition of isotropic also?

As usual...your imaginary nuclear engineering courses let you down...you don't seem to be able to get anything right hairball...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Don't try to weasel out of your hilariously stupid physics failure by switching definitions of "diffuse". I made it clear I was using a definition of diffuse that means "parallel". You're now switching to a different defnition of "diffuse". Highly dishonest of you, as usual.
> ...




*Sorry hairball...sunlight is not parallel*




_
Why the Sun's rays that land on Earth are parallel - The further a planet is from the Sun, the smaller the arc of the Sun's rays that intercept the plant. The Earth is so far away from the Sun that for many purposes, all the Sun's rays can be considered to be parallel._ 

Why the Earth receives parallel rays of light from the Sun - Earthguide Online Classroom


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> sunlight is not parallel....and a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation....



A really good example of how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are, SSoooDDumb, and how horribly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are. You are literally too stupid and incompetent to have the mental capacity to be able to recognize how utterly moronic and mentally incompetent you actually are.

You managed to get both those bits of basic science assbackwards wrong!

Todd just showed how wrong you are about the effectively parallel nature of sunlight.

You quoted something from a Wikipedia article that you are too stupid to realize does not support your idiot claims about parabolic reflectors.....



SSDD said:


> and here, from wiki....parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam..



Maybe you are _really_ not all that retarded, SSoooDDumb....maybe you are a paid troll knowingly pushing lies and confusion and braindead denial.....'cause looky here, you just deliberately cherry-picked only a part of that quote from Wiki to imply that it was supporting your fraudulent and insane claim that "_a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation_"....but you *had* to have read the whole thing, *so....either you are too stupid to understand it...or you are a paid troll....*

Here's the full quote.....

*Parabolic reflectors are used to collect energy from a distant source (for example sound waves or incoming star light). Since the principles of reflection are reversible, parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam.[1]*

"_Isotropic_", in this case, means a point source of radiation, radiating in (almost) all directions, at the focal point of the reflector.

.....and the rest of your Wikipedia article completely contradicts your retarded nonsense.

*The parabolic reflector functions due to the geometric properties of the paraboloidal shape: any incoming ray that is parallel to the axis of the dish will be reflected to a central point, or "focus". (For a geometrical proof, click here.) Because many types of energy can be reflected in this way, parabolic reflectors can be used to collect and concentrate energy entering the reflector at a particular angle. Similarly, energy radiating from the focus to the dish can be transmitted outward in a beam that is parallel to the axis of the dish.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> A really good example of how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are, SSoooDDumb, and how horribly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are. You are literally too stupid and incompetent to have the mental capacity to be able to recognize how utterly moronic and mentally incompetent you actually are.



Sorry thunder, you glassy eyed chanters are the ones who constantly get it wrong...Do you think that the energy reaching the outer atmosphere is the same as the energy reaching the surface of the earth?...You wackos look for something...anything that supports your claims and don't look any  further and therefore fail to see that had you just gone a step or two further, your claim would have fallen apart..

Here, from wiki..your favorite source..
*
Diffuse sky radiation* is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been *scattered* from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called *skylight*, *diffuse skylight*, or *sky radiation* and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky. 

So thunder...the  fact remains that a parabolic reflector gathers diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam...if back radiation existed, you could not freeze water in the focal point of a parabolic reflector pointed at clear sky when the ambient temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 3, 2017)

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light  which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.




Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
> And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
> The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light  which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
> They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.
> ...



*No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation
*
You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 3, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> A really good example of how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are, SSoooDDumb, and how horribly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are. You are literally too stupid and incompetent to have the mental capacity to be able to recognize how utterly moronic and mentally incompetent you actually are.





SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder, you glassy eyed chanters are the ones who constantly get it wrong...Do you think that the energy reaching the outer atmosphere is the same as the energy reaching the surface of the earth?


Pretty much *yes*, you poor confused moron....direct sunlight is only slightly diminished in intensity while passing through the atmosphere.






SSDD said:


> ...You wackos look for something...anything that supports your claims and don't look any  further and therefore fail to see that had you just gone a step or two further, your claim would have fallen apart..
> 
> Here, from wiki..your favorite source..
> *
> Diffuse sky radiation* is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been *scattered* from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called *skylight*, *diffuse skylight*, or *sky radiation* and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky.


LOLOLOLOL.....you are literally so stupid you don't realize that *direct sunlight* (with the parallel rays) is entirely different from the "_diffuse sky radiation_" coming from molecules of air bombarded by solar photons.

*"Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time."
Why is the sky blue? - NASA*








SSDD said:


> So thunder...the  fact remains that a parabolic reflector gathers diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam...


Nope! Already debunked, so you are just idiotically lying...or maybe braindead.






SSDD said:


> if back radiation existed, you could not freeze water in the focal point of a parabolic reflector pointed at clear sky when the ambient temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.


Clinging to your insanity is so pathetic!

Backradiation exists in the real world.....too bad you don't.

Parabolic reflectors DON'T focus diffuse radiation from the whole sky.....something that is obvious to everyone with more than half a brain. Sorry you don't qualify.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Pretty much *yes*, you poor confused moron....direct sunlight is only slightly diminished in intensity while passing through the atmosphere.



Sorry thunder, but once again...you are wrong...there is reason that were you able to expose yourself to direct sunlight above the atmosphere, you would be chicken fried in seconds and yet, here on the surface, you can bask in it all day if you like...there is a great deal of difference between the character of sunlight at the top of the atmosphere and down here on the surface...grasping at straws trying to save a failed point is classic thunder..,






SSDD said:


> ...You wackos look for something...anything that supports your claims and don't look any  further and therefore fail to see that had you just gone a step or two further, your claim would have fallen apart..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Yarddog (Apr 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
> ...





It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one,  it is always the opposite.

There is this theory I have heard, that if they could possibly release sand particles somehwhere up in orbit, the particles could act as reflectors and block out some of the rays from the sun. I wonder if this could really be done,
but It sounds like something that would be very hard to un-do if they put too much up there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> ...


*
It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one,  *

No one said that. But we're discussing radiation, and all matter above 0K radiates in all directions.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


why would you be warmer?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> ...



Until we know all there is to know about the movement of energy through the earth system, any attempt to alter it is a recipe for disaster....back in the 70's during the ice age scare, there was talk of spreading black soot over the arctic ice in an attempt to melt it and in doing so reduce the earth's albedo...and in doing so, absorb more energy from the sun to make it warmer..


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


*No one said that.*

Sure you all do.  you say the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



I'm warmer than the walls of my house.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...



I've never seen anyone say that.
I have heard it said that the atmosphere retains heat / slows the loss of heat to space.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder, you glassy eyed chanters are the ones who constantly get it wrong...Do you think that the energy reaching the outer atmosphere is the same as the energy reaching the surface of the earth?...
> *
> "Diffuse sky radiation* is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been *scattered* from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called *skylight*, *diffuse skylight*, or *sky radiation* and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky."





RollingThunder said:


> Pretty much *yes*, you poor confused moron....*direct sunlight* is only slightly diminished in intensity while passing through the atmosphere.





SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder, but once again...you are wrong...there is reason that were you able to expose yourself to direct sunlight above the atmosphere, you would be chicken fried in seconds and yet, here on the surface, you can bask in it all day if you like...there is a great deal of difference between the character of sunlight at the top of the atmosphere and down here on the surface...grasping at straws trying to save a failed point is classic thunder..



Sorry, SSoooDDumb, but you are wrong for about the millionth time on this forum.

I said that *direct sunlight* is diminished passing through the atmosphere....more so at certain frequencies of light.....the air filters out most of the ultraviolet, for example, which is the primary cause of sunburn.

You are stupidly and utterly confused by the scattering of some small part of the sun's energy by the air molecules, causing the sky to glow blue.

In fact, most of the energy from the sun reaches the Earth's surface....as I said.

*"Of the ~340 W/m² of solar radiation received by the Earth (at the top of the atmosphere), an average of ~77 W/m² is reflected back to space by clouds and the atmosphere..."*
- Wikipedia

I'm not really sure what you imagine your point to be anyway, you poor confused retard.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> I said that *direct sunlight* is diminished passing through the atmosphere....more so at certain frequencies of light.....the air filters out most of the ultraviolet, for example, which is the primary cause of sunburn.
> 
> You are stupidly and utterly confused by the scattering of some small part of the sun's energy by the air molecules, causing the sky to glow blue.



Sorry thunder, but again, you couldn't be more wrong...but then that is to be expected.  



RollingThunder said:


> In fact, most of the energy from the sun reaches the Earth's surface....as I said.



Like I said before...you don't have a clue...47% of the sunlight that is incident at the top of the atmosphere reaches the surface...and it is diffuse by the time it reaches the surface..



RollingThunder said:


> I'm not really sure what you imagine your point to be anyway, you poor confused retard.



So you have no idea what the point is...but have ranted on about the topic for all these posts?...why does that not surprise me?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
> ...


_You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?_
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from  mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


dude you'll never get them to agree with you.  They all believe 1500C can warm 2000C.  You've done a very commendable write up and explanation.  but alas, you will still be arguing that 1500C can't heat 2000C above 2000C


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2017)

Didn't we beat this to death with the 100W light bulb adding outside energy to a room radiating at 400W?

The process of redistributing energy by passive radiation is different than adding adding energy.

An object has a theoretical maximum temperature defined by the heat source but is always less. Throw a pillow over a light bulb and it will warm up but never reach the temp of the filament. Turn off the light and passive radiation will cause all the objects to move towards the same temperature.

A piece of steel warmed by an OA torch will cool when the torch is turned off by transferring energy to the environment. If the environment is a propane flame then it will cool more slowly until it matches the propane temp. Turn off the propane and it will again lose passive radiation to the environment and cool.

Conflating active heating and passive redistribution of heat is disingenuous.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> Didn't we beat this to death with the 100W light bulb adding outside energy to a room radiating at 400W?
> 
> The process of redistributing energy by passive radiation is different than adding adding energy.
> 
> ...


the object lesson from before was the 100W making the 400W warmer.  Your current write up is fine with me.  The 400W room would cool to 100W and if you turned that source off, it would cool to the ambient temperature outside.  Even your explanation of the piece of steel is accurate.  holy fk.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.*

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

*The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.*

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2017)

Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.

*"Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect*

The fakes boxed themselves into a corner claiming greenhouse gasses heat the upper atmosphere (for several screwy reasons), while there is no way to get the cold air up there to heat the surface of the earth. So they claim "back radiation" moves the heat downward. The whole concept is scientifically perverse.

 The thickness of the fake zone of emission would need to be known. No one has even mentioned its thickness, as if it were a surface."


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

_*The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.*
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2_
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world  the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either




Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and  does get down  there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to *how much (EXACTLY)*...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.*

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

*So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight*

I would never tell you that!

*miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation*

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

*And once what is left of the sunlight and  does get down  there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it*

Not all of it. Some of it.

*because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.*

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?_
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider, they routinely look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


*
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel **if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.*

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Greenhouse gasses hover?  They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2017)

jc456 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I know they won`t no matter what. But the Toddster guy who is insisting on his opinion to which he is entitled to does deserve some credit for refraining from name calling etc


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.
> 
> *"Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect*
> 
> ...


Whatever they can`t or won`t specify they substitute by so called "average" values. Thus they come up with an average solar irradiance, temperature, cloud cover, albedo and material characteristics for the entire planet.
As if we won`t need head & street lights because we have at all time and everywhere average sunlight. If this average garbage were legitimate then CO2 must also be able to make up for a hot spot with a below normal cold spot, allowing for currently claimed anomalies somewhere else. The CO2 needs to be at least as smart as a smart bomb.
If it can`t then the averaging method is disqualified from being accurate and ranks in that metric way down there with carpet bombing for lack of accuracy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.*

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2017)

PolarBear is right about the torch case. You're essentially introducing a cooler stream of matter into a warmer system, a 2000F stream being injected into a 3000F system. Hence, the system cools.

However, it's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a cooler stream of matter is _not_ being injected into the earth's climate system. Energy is being injected, not cooler matter, and energy can only warm the system.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> PolarBear is right about the torch case. You're essentially introducing a cooler stream of matter into a warmer system, a 2000F stream being injected into a 3000F system. Hence, the system cools.
> 
> However, it's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a cooler stream of matter is _not_ being injected into the earth's climate system. Energy is being injected, not cooler matter, and energy can only warm the system.


and yet there is not evidence of your wet dream.  none, zip, squat juice.  

Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.


"The fakes boxed themselves into a corner claiming greenhouse gasses heat the upper atmosphere (for several screwy reasons), while there is no way to get the cold air up there to heat the surface of the earth. So they claim "back radiation" moves the heat downward. The whole concept is scientifically perverse.

 The thickness of the fake zone of emission would need to be known. No one has even mentioned its thickness, as if it were a surface."


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> PolarBear is right about the torch case. You're essentially introducing a cooler stream of matter into a warmer system, a 2000F stream being injected into a 3000F system. Hence, the system cools.
> 
> However, it's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a cooler stream of matter is _not_ being injected into the earth's climate system. Energy is being injected, not cooler matter, and energy can only warm the system.







So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Where don't they go?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you said they didn't hover.  so where do they go?  you inferred movement.

Are you also inferring that the jet stream doesn't move the gases?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*you said they didn't hover.*

I did? When?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so they do hover?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?



Do cool downdrafts originate in outer space, outside of earth's climate system?

No.

Hence, that has nothing to do with your torch example. Updrafts and downdrafts move heat around, but they don't add or remove heat.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?
> ...


What an absurd reply. Cold downdrafts cool the surface and everything else in the vicinity.
The heat the air lost to cool it down was dissipated at altitudes exceeding 3000 meters and up to 12 000 meters above ground level. But according to you there is no difference when that happens because the atmosphere at 12 000 meters is still "part of the climate system" inferring that none of that affected the temperature in the altitude range that we monitor for temperature....which by the way is supposed to be 1.5 meters above the ground for the weather stations that gather the data.
Aside from just getting rid of a huge amount of heat and conveying it to altitudes where the partial vapor pressure of 400 ppm molar CO2 is next to nothing when expressed in weight per volume or moles per volume there is a significant wind chill factor acting on the ground below.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?
> ...


it's funny that you think heat comes back down to the surface. Updrafts remove heat from the surface.  you can just post up that diagram that shows heat coming toward the surface on a downdraft.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Ice cubes are used to cool a drink:




But when they are round then it`s heat "coming back down"


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 5, 2017)

This moronic thread's OP was completely debunked on page one in post #10.....killed dead.....just a zombie lurching along since then......which makes the denier cultists feel right at home.

Post #10 had two experiments demonstrating CO2 backradiation performed by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the few scientists who is actually somewhat skeptical about some aspects of AGW....but he is not crazy enough to deny basic science like the denier cult dingbats on this forum.

The denialists got crazy after post #10 about IR thermometers, fraudulently of course, and just ignored Dr. Spencer's second experiment, probably because they don't have sufficient attention span to read that far. I thought, at this point, it would probably be kind of amusing to watch them try to deal with the straightforward simplicity of this experiment. The debunked bullcrap OP is long since dead anyway, and their anti-science mental masturbation has long since gone completely off topic.

*Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box*
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010
(Skipping the first part)

*Evidence from The Box

I have been seeing the same effect in “The Box”, which is my attempt to use the greenhouse effect to warm and cool a thin aluminum plate coated with high-emissivity paint, that is heavily insulated from its surroundings in order to isolate just the radiative transfers of energy between the sky and the plate. This can be considered a clumsy, inefficient version of the IR thermometer. But now, *I* am making actual temperature measurements.

The following plot (click on it for the full-size version) shows data from the last 2 days, up through this morning’s events. The plate gets colder at night than the ambient temperature because it “sees” the cold sky, and is insulated from heat flow from the surrounding air and ground.




In the lower right, I have also circled where thin middle-level clouds came over, emitting more IR radiation downward than the clear sky, and causing a warming of the plate. Since the plate is mostly isolated from heat exchanges with the surrounding air and warm ground, it responds faster than the ambient air temperature to the intensity of “back radiation” downwelling from the sky.

When I woke this morning before sunrise, around 5:30, I saw these mid-level clouds (I used to be a certified aviation weather observer), I measured about 50 deg. F from the handheld IR thermometer.

This supports what people already experience…cloudy nights are, on average, warmer than clear nights. The main reason is that clouds emit more IR downward, change the (im)balance between upwelling and downwelling IR, and if you change the balance between energy flows in and out of an object, its temperature will change. Conservation of Energy, they call it.

(WARNING: a technical detail about the above measurements and their importance to greenhouse theory follows.)

What this Means for the Miskolczi “Aa=Ed” Controversy

Except for relatively rare special cases, the total amount of IR energy downwelling from the sky (Ed) will ALWAYS remain less than the amount upwelling from below and absorbed by the sky (Aa). As long as (1) the atmosphere has some transparency to IR radiation (which it does), and (2) the atmosphere is colder than the surface (which it is), then Ed will be less than Aa…even though they are usually close to one another, since temperatures are always adjusting to minimize IR flux divergences and convergences.

But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> *
> But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.*



There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...you can see the evidence of this by the continual reduction of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers...it is well on its way to zero..


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 7, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> *
> But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.*





SSDD said:


> There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...you can see the evidence of this by the continual reduction of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers...it is well on its way to zero..



Just more of SSoooDDumb's usual anti-science denier cult insanity and lies.....based on nothing....no support, no evidence....while in the real world, there is absolutely no doubt scientifically about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. There have been no "_reductions of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers_" except in denier cult mythology. In the real world....

*Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity - NOAA - Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory*
(excerpts)
*Projections of the severity of anthropogenic climate change are strongly dependent on our estimates of climate sensitivity, traditionally defined as the average warming at the Earth’s surface due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels. This importance arises not simply because the mean temperature change directly causes all of the impacts of major concern, but because many other effects of climate change are predicted to increase in severity with larger warming.

The equilibrium sensitivity — the temperature change realized after allowing the climate system to equilibrate with a higher value of CO2, after the deep oceans have had time to equilibrate -- is of direct relevance to the changes we are likely to see in the 21st century. 

Equilibrium sensitivities in global climate models typically range from 2 to more than 4C.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Just more of SSoooDDumb's usual anti-science denier cult insanity and lies.....based on nothing....no support, no evidence....while in the real world, there is absolutely no doubt scientifically about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. There have been no "_reductions of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers_" except in denier cult mythology. In the real world....



You just keep on demonstrating that your belief, and that of climate science, for that matter is a matter of dogma and faith...not science..  There isn't the first bit of actual measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...it is all mathematical models...and yet, you claim that there is absolutely no doubt that the greenhouse effect as described by climate science is as it is described by climate science even though, the margin of error is larger than the actual claimed sensitivity.

As you can see...as I said, the estimates of climate sensitivity are well on their way to zero.  Back in the 90's to the early 2000's , the estimate of sensitivity was 3 to 6 degrees...between 2005 and 2010, that estimate dropped to 2 to 3 degrees and since 2010, that estimate as stated in the published literature has been dropping and now the average is about a degree and a half, and falling.  

Hell thunder, any idiot should be able to figure out that CO2 isn't all that...the ice age that the earth is presently clawing its way out of began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm....and you are wringing your hands predicting disaster over 400?...laughable thunder...absolutely laughable.


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2017)

Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers?  The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so.  Care to explain?

Wait... wait... let me guess. Anyone doing mathematics in the process of a scientific investigation is a useless model.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers?  The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so.  Care to explain?
> 
> Wait... wait... let me guess. Anyone doing mathematics in the process of a scientific investigation is a useless model.


So what? Of course the atmosphere had a warming effect before we had computers and fossil fuel CO2.
And why would you have to "do mathematics"* (now)* to investigate further if as they say "the science is settled"
You guessed wrong, *because all the models (so far) are wrong.*
From your favorite "science" guru:
The albedo effect and global warming
_*The Unsettled Science of Albedo*
The project reported a counter-intuitive finding. The Earth’s albedo was rising, even as the planet was warming. This seems contradictory, as Anthony Watts was quick to note when he voiced his sceptical argument in 2007. If higher albedo was having a cooling effect, how could global warming be taking place?
*Conclusions*
Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science._
That goes to show how ignorant of physics these "climate scientists" are.
They state that 1120 W/m^2 sunlight hitting the ground which they said until now has an albedo of 0.3  leaves enough reflected energy to give us the daylight we have which is anywhere from 10 000 to 25 000 lux indirect sunlight.
With a 0.3 albedo that is at a minimum about 24 watts per m^2 short of what it takes to illuminate 1 m^2 to that brightness.
And that is also at a minimum almost 10x the amount of global warming we get blamed for.


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2017)

I was responding to Same Shit's claim that all support for greenhouse earming was based on flawed mathematical models. If you'd like to address that, feel free, but your last comment does not do so.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> I was responding to Same Shit's claim that all support for greenhouse earming was based on flawed mathematical models. If you'd like to address that, feel free, but your last comment does not do so.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


What?.. you don`t think that these models were  flawed, now that it is clear that the albedo the models have used were wrong? And finally the admission that the "science" regarding the increasing albedo is not settled makes no difference to you ?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers?  The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so.  Care to explain?
> 
> Wait... wait... let me guess. Anyone doing mathematics in the process of a scientific investigation is a useless model.





polarbear said:


> So what? Of course the atmosphere had a warming effect before we had computers and fossil fuel CO2.


For hundreds of millions of years the Greenhouse Effect was indeed keeping the planet warmer than it would have been without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.....but the effect was generally to moderate and stabilize temperatures in a homeostatic balance. Currently the over 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has destabilized temperatures and is having a vastly increased "_warming effect_", heading towards temperatures not seen on Earth for many millions of years, when the planet was a very different place, with much, much higher sea levels.








polarbear said:


> And why would you have to "do mathematics"* (now)* to investigate further if as they say "the science is settled"


Too bad you are so stupid! The phrase "_the science is settled_" that has been used in relation to anthropogenic global warming refers to the fact that the basic physics and processes that are causing the current abrupt and rapid global warming are well understood and are no longer in question. It doesn't mean that every aspect and part of what is happening has already been fully investigated and known. It does mean that scientists are quite certain that human activities have caused this 46% increase in CO2 levels, and that it is these highly elevated CO2 levels that are causing the rapid increase in global temperatures.








polarbear said:


> You guessed wrong, *because all the models (so far) are wrong.*


Too bad you're so insane, poop4brains! The climate models have proved to be fairly accurate and the predictions resulting from those models seem to be, if anything, somewhat too conservative....things are happening even faster than the models predicted.

*Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming*
*Dr John Abraham, professor of thermal sciences*
27 July 2016 







polarbear said:


> From your favorite "science" guru:
> The albedo effect and global warming
> _*The Unsettled Science of Albedo*
> The project reported a counter-intuitive finding. The Earth’s albedo was rising, even as the planet was warming. This seems contradictory, as Anthony Watts was quick to note when he voiced his sceptical argument in 2007. If higher albedo was having a cooling effect, how could global warming be taking place?
> ...


Too bad you are such a braindead *LIAR*, POOP4brains!

Citing something and then cherry-picking quotes to distort the meaning is fraudulent debate. Here is the whole quote, which doesn't mean what you are moronically and deceitfully trying to claim:

"*Measuring Albedo*
*The albedo of a surface is measured on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is a idealised black surface with no reflection, and 1 represents a white surface that has perfect reflection. 

Taking measurements of something with so many variables and influences is clearly going to be a challenge. Satellite data is constrained by the orbit of the satellite. Clouds can be hard to distinguish from white surfaces.

Indirect measurement may also be problematic. The Earthshine project investigated a phenomenon where light reflected by Earth illuminates the dark side of the moon. By measuring the brightness, the amount of albedo - reflectivity - could be estimated.

The project reported a counter-intuitive finding. The Earth’s albedo was rising, even as the planet was warming. This seems contradictory, as Anthony Watts was quick to note when he voiced his sceptical argument in 2007. If higher albedo was having a cooling effect, how could global warming be taking place?

Tricky Business
Science constantly seeks to improve itself. The first Earthshine paper (Palle 2004) claimed to have discovered a very significant cooling effect through a big increase in global albedo.

The results were problematic.  They flatly contradicted the NASA CERES satellite observations, and the discrepancy became the subject of investigation. In 2004, a new telescope was installed at the Big Bear observatory, where the project was located. It became evident that the original analysis was inaccurate. Once corrected, the Earthshine project and the satellite measurements were more consistent.

Global versus Local
There are contradictory assessments of current trends in global albedo, possibly because the changes and effects are small. Research is being conducted into the role of clouds, both as forcings and feedbacks, and the role of albedo in cloud formation.

Recent research indicates that global albedo is fairly constant, and having no material effect on global temperatures. Local effects may be more pronounced. Loss of albedo in the Arctic could heat the water sufficiently to release methane stored in ice crystals called clathrates. (Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2).

Loss of albedo in the Arctic will accelerate warming across adjacent permafrost, releasing methane. Melting permafrost may reduce its albedo, another positive feedback that will accelerate warming. Ocean warming from reduced Arctic albedo will also accelerate melting at the edges of the Greenland ice cap, speeding up sea level rise.

Conclusions
Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science.
*
*We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change - positive or negative - it may make.*"






polarbear said:


> That goes to show how ignorant of physics these "climate scientists" are.


Nope! Your post once again shows how ignorant of physics and science you actually are, poop4brains......as well as completely afflicted with the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.






polarbear said:


> They state that 1120 W/m^2 sunlight hitting the ground which they said until now has an albedo of 0.3  leaves enough reflected energy to give us the daylight we have which is anywhere from 10 000 to 25 000 lux indirect sunlight.


Sooooo stupid! "_Indirect sunlight_" has almost nothing to do with albedo, or the amount of reflected light from the Earth's surface.

"_*Daylight*_", which you claim "_is anywhere from 10 000 to 25 000 lux indirect sunlight_" is basically a combination of (mostly) direct sunlight and the diffuse sky radiation caused by sunlight getting scattered by striking particulates in the atmosphere or interacting with gas molecules.

*Diffuse sky radiation* *is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been scattered from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called skylight, diffuse skylight, or sky radiation and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky. Of the total light removed from the direct solar beam by scattering in the atmosphere (approximately 25% of the incident radiation when the sun is high in the sky, depending on the amount of dust and haze in the atmosphere), about two-thirds ultimately reaches the earth as diffuse sky radiation. When the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky, with 1361 W/m2[1] above the atmosphere, direct sunlight is about 1050 W/m2, and total insolation about 1120 W/m2.[2] This implies that under these conditions the diffuse radiation is only about 70 W/m2 out of the original 1361 W/m2.

The dominant radiative scattering processes in the atmosphere (Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering) are elastic in nature, by which light can be deviated from its path without being absorbed and with no change in wavelength.

The sunlit sky is blue because air scatters short-wavelength light more than longer wavelengths. Since blue light is at the short-wavelength end of the visible spectrum, it is more strongly scattered in the atmosphere than long-wavelength red light. The result is that when looking toward parts of the sky other than the sun, human eye perceives them to be blue.[3] The color perceived is similar to that obtained by a monochromatic blue of a wavelength of 474–476 nm mixed with white light, i.e., an unsaturated blue light.[4]

Near sunrise and sunset, most of the sunlight arrives nearly tangentially to the Earth's surface; thus, the light's path through the atmosphere is so long that much of the blue and even green light is scattered out along the way, leaving the sun rays and the clouds it illuminates red. Therefore, when looking at the sunset and sunrise, we see the colour red more than the other colors.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers?  The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so.  Care to explain?



You don't think there were mathematical models prior to the computer?  What a doofus.

By the way...professor Woods discredited the greenhouse claim shortly after it was published...  And you have a hypothesis promoted by Arrhenius, while the hypothesis that I support was posited by Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot...and their hypothesis, by the way, predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, and is the basis for the US standard atmosphere in use by NASA...your hypothesis only predicts the temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> For hundreds of millions of years the Greenhouse Effect was indeed keeping the planet warmer than it would have been without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...



Care to show me some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting that claim?  Of course you can't... because none exists...it is the product of a mathematical model..nothing more...There are no actual measurements of a greenhouse effect...and don't bother showing me all your evidence of a changing climate again...evidence of climate change is not evidence of the cause...you only make assumptions on the cause due to some internal need you have...not because of any observed, measured, quantified evidence.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> For hundreds of millions of years the Greenhouse Effect was indeed keeping the planet warmer than it would have been without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...





SSDD said:


> Care to show me some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting that claim?


Of course. And I, and others, have indeed showed you such scientific evidence many times....and every time you moronically deny the science because you are a very retarded member of an anti-science cult ginned up by the fossil fuel industry to create confusion and delay action to legally limit carbon emissions because such limits would cut their profits and hurt their stock prices.

In the real world.....

*From the experts: Greenhouse effect*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Of course. And I, and others, have indeed showed you such scientific evidence many times....



No you haven't.. you have shown evidence that the climate changes and is changing..and then tacked on an assumption that we are causing it...it has been interesting to see what passes for observed, measured quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability in your mind, and in the minds of others though...You have shown me exactly how easily you have been fooled...you are shown evidence that the climate is changing...then were told that we were causing it without the first piece of evidence supporting that claim and you believed...you believed because of your political leanings...or because you need to believe in something...or because you are just plain old uneducated and have been duped...but neither you, nor anyone else has been shown evidence that we are causing the global climate to change.

As to your video...in the first few seconds, she states that if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, that heat gets trapped...just what the greenhouse hypothesis states...and the hypothesis also states that if that heat gets trapped, it will be evidenced by a tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun..the proof that CO2 traps heat...but alas, there is no tropospheric hot spot...a million plus radiosondes have been sent up and none of them have recorded a tropospheric hot spot..and neither have weather aircraft, or satellites, or anything else...it does not exist because CO2 does not trap heat...the hypothesis fails on its face...think of some other reason the earth is the temperature it is...the greenhouse hypothesis fails...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Of course. And I, and others, have indeed showed you such scientific evidence many times....





SSDD said:


> No you haven't..


Yes we have.....but as I just said, you are far too stupid and brainwashed to understand it or accept it, you poor delusional retard.





SSDD said:


> you have shown evidence that the climate changes and is changing..and then tacked on an assumption that we are causing it..


Nope! The evidence very clearly supports the laws of physics and the Greenhouse Gas Effect, and the fact that it is the 46% increase in CO2 levels that is causing the current abrupt rapid global warming.






SSDD said:


> ...it has been interesting to see what passes for observed, measured quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability in your mind, and in the minds of others though...You have shown me exactly how easily you have been fooled...


In the real world, it has been hilarious to watch you idiotically deny the observed, measured, quantified scientific evidence supporting AGW that you have been shown because of your crackpot rightwingnut denier cult ideological obsessions.








SSDD said:


> As to your video...in the first few seconds, she states that if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, that heat gets trapped...just what the greenhouse hypothesis states...and the hypothesis also states that if that heat gets trapped, it will be evidenced by a tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun..the proof that CO2 traps heat...but alas, there is no tropospheric hot spot...a million plus radiosondes have been sent up and none of them have recorded a tropospheric hot spot..and neither have weather aircraft, or satellites, or anything else...it does not exist because CO2 does not trap heat...the hypothesis fails on its face...think of some other reason the earth is the temperature it is...the greenhouse hypothesis fails...



And your fraudulent crackpot denier cult 'argument' falls flat on its face in the manure...

*Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot*
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
*Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

The results show that the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters 

 



Provided by: University of New South Wales 

*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Yes we have.....but as I just said, you are far too stupid and brainwashed to understand it or accept it, you poor delusional retard.



No...you haven't...you have shown evidence of climate change...to date, you have yet to show any actual evidence as to why the climate is changing...but feel free to go back through all the stuff you have posted and see if you can pick something out.  Evidence that the climate is changing is not evidence that we are causing it...




RollingThunder said:


> Nope! The evidence very clearly supports the laws of physics and the Greenhouse Gas Effect, and the fact that it is the 46% increase in CO2 levels that is causing the current abrupt rapid global warming.



And yet, you can't show any measurement of the greenhouse effect...you can't quantify it to any degree of accuracy..and the hot spot it predicts as the smoking gun of man's culpability in global climate change is absent.  The hypothesis fails but being true believers, you can't bear to admit it and just keep on believing.  That is just being gullible.




RollingThunder said:


> In the real world, it has been hilarious to watch you idiotically deny the observed, measured, quantified scientific evidence supporting AGW that you have been shown because of your crackpot rightwingnut denier cult ideological obsessions.



Sorry thunder, you just don't have much association with the real world...again, showing me evidence that the climate is changing is a different thing from showing evidence of why the climate is changing...I have never argued that the climate doesn't change...I don't need to see any more evidence of that than I already have...I believe it...I have lived long enough to see it..

What I need to see is evidence that we are causing it...telling me that sea levels are rising certainly isn't evidence that we are causing it..sea level has been rising for 14,000 years...and for a great deal of it, far more rapidly than it is now...Showing me that ice is melting isn't evidence that we are causing it...the ice has been melting back for 14,000 years now and for most of that time, it was melting at a far more rapid pace than it is now...Showing me that temperatures are warming isn't evidence that we are causing it...the temperatures have been going up and down forever, and the gold standard ice core reconstructions show us that it has often risen much faster than anything we have experienced and much higher than anything we have experienced...Showing me that CO2 levels are rising isn't evidence that we are causing climate change...the ice age that the earth is still climbing out of began with CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm...that in and of itself sort of throws a wrench in the claim that CO2 causes warming...imagine, and ice age beginning with CO2 levels over 1000ppm...and if you go further back in history, you find ice ages beginning with CO2 levels even higher than that...much higher.




RollingThunder said:


> And your fraudulent crackpot denier cult 'argument' falls flat on its face in the manure...
> 
> *Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot*




And this just adds to the evidence that you are about as gullible as a single individual can be.  If they can't find the hot spot, then it must be because they aren't adjusting the numbers the right way?...that is how it goes with climate science...if it isn't warming, then lets just adjust the numbers so that it is warming...if there is no hot spot, then lets just adjust the numbers so that there is...

Those radiosondes have very precise thermometers on board...they record the temperatures with extreme accuracy...there is no need for adjustment...like the CRN ground station that requires no adjustment and doesn't show any warming at all...and in fact shows a 13 year cooling trend...

So again..it is interesting to see what passes for evidence in your mind...adjusting a data set till it shows what you want to see..yep...some evidence...evidence of scientific misconduct...evidence of gross dishonesty...evidence of fraud...but certainly not evidence that we are causing the climate to change....oh yes, it is also evidence that you are a first class, top shelf dupe.


----------



## Crick (Apr 10, 2017)

No need for adjustment?  They are perfect?  And they cannot be made imperfect?  And I suppose the same goes for the altimeters?  How very fucking convenient for you.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> No need for adjustment?  They are perfect?  And they cannot be made imperfect?  And I suppose the same goes for the altimeters?  How very fucking convenient for you.



Do you think you can change the actual elevation of an airport by adjusting the altemeter?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Yes we have.....but as I just said, you are far too stupid and brainwashed to understand it or accept it, you poor delusional retard.
> ...


SSoooDDumb's rejection of the scientific evidence has nothing to do with science and everything to do with his denier cult dogmas and myths. If the science shows something that conflicts with his crackpot rightwingnut political ideology, then the science must be "_dishonest_" or a "_fraud_" in his deranged little mind.

For example, he *has* to denigrate and deny the scientific facts about the Tropical Troposperic Hot Spot....because it's non-existence is one of his denier cult's favorite dogmas, even if that myth has been shown to be wrong in current published peer-reviewed science.

*Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

The results show that the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSoooDDumb's rejection of the scientific evidence has nothing to do with science and everything to do with his denier cult dogmas and myths. If the science shows something that conflicts with his crackpot rightwingnut political ideology, then the science must be "_dishonest_" or a "_fraud_" in his deranged little mind.



All you have shown me thunder is evidence that the climate is changing...and a whole bunch of assumptions that we are causing it...it isn't my fault if you are so stupid that you believe that evidence of climate change is also evidence that we are causing it.



RollingThunder said:


> For example, he *has* to denigrate and deny the scientific facts about the Tropical Troposperic Hot Spot...



Did you notice that they didn't publish a graph showing the supposed hot spot they supposedly found?  If they actually had, don't you think that would have been front and center?...and they admitted that they had to toss out quite a bit of data and do some major league adjustments to station data to get the signal they wanted....that is only evidence of scientific misconduct...not good science..

Good science is admitting that the hot spot is not there and that the hypothesis has failed.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSoooDDumb's rejection of the scientific evidence has nothing to do with science and everything to do with his denier cult dogmas and myths. If the science shows something that conflicts with his crackpot rightwingnut political ideology, then the science must be "_dishonest_" or a "_fraud_" in his deranged little mind.





SSDD said:


> All you have shown me thunder is evidence that the climate is changing...



Nope! You are just too retarded and brainwashed, SSoooDDumb, to either understand or accept the large amounts of evidence that you have been shown confirming the human caused, CO2 driven nature of the current abrupt rapid global warming.....because you are either a braindead cultic fanatic or a paid agent for EXXON.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Nope! You are just too retarded and brainwashed, SSoooDDumb, to either understand or accept the large amounts of evidence that you have been shown confirming the human caused, CO2 driven nature of the current abrupt rapid global warming.....because you are either a braindead cultic fanatic or a paid agent for EXXON.



Which evidence do you think confirms that humans and our CO2 are responsible for global climate change...I didn't see anything there that constituted anything like that sort of evidence...I saw plenty of evidence that the climate is changing, but then that has never been contested...that is the nature of the climate...it changes...always has...always will.

Tell you what thunder, prove me wrong....you go through your steaming pile of bullshit and cut out a paragraph or two which to you appears to be actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that we are seeing manmade climate change rather than natural variability.

My bet is that either you won't even attempt the challenge because you know that there is no such evidence in existence, or what you will bring forward is just more evidence of climate change with an unsupported accusation that man is causing it tacked on.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Nope! You are just too retarded and brainwashed, SSoooDDumb, to either understand or accept the large amounts of evidence that you have been shown confirming the human caused, CO2 driven nature of the current abrupt rapid global warming.....because you are either a braindead cultic fanatic or a paid agent for EXXON.





SSDD said:


> Which evidence do you think confirms that humans and our CO2 are responsible for global climate change...I didn't see anything there that constituted anything like that sort of evidence...I saw plenty of evidence that the climate is changing, but then that has never been contested...that is the nature of the climate...it changes...always has...always will.
> 
> Tell you what thunder, prove me wrong....you go through your steaming pile of bullshit and cut out a paragraph or two which to you appears to be actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that we are seeing manmade climate change rather than natural variability.
> 
> My bet is that either you won't even attempt the challenge because you know that there is no such evidence in existence, or what you will bring forward is just more evidence of climate change with an unsupported accusation that man is causing it tacked on.  Prove me wrong.



I already proved you wrong and debunked your lies many, many times, you cultic troll. You moronically reject and deny the scientific evidence every time, so why bother to go through that cycle again?

Your unsupported denial of reality has no significance at all. You demand 'evidence' and you have received such evidence many times, but you never have any actual evidence to support your own BS claims that contradict the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality of AGW.

You are a moronic anti-science denier cult troll, stooging for the billionaires at the top of the fossil fuel industry. Fuck off!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No need for adjustment?  They are perfect?  And they cannot be made imperfect?  And I suppose the same goes for the altimeters?  How very fucking convenient for you.
> ...


They have to make these "adjustments" for altitude because they use a model globe where all the temperatures are ("corrected to be")at sea level. But at the same time they lament the lack of snow on the mountain tops that don`t even exist on their flat earth climatology globe where all the temperatures are higher than they really were where they have been recorded.
+ they can flood this imaginary sea level terrain globe more easily with melting some ice in the arctic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> No need for adjustment?  They are perfect?  And they cannot be made imperfect?  And I suppose the same goes for the altimeters?  How very fucking convenient for you.





polarbear said:


> They have to make these "adjustments" for altitude because they use a model globe where all the temperatures are ("corrected to be")at sea level. But at the same time they lament the lack of snow on the mountain tops that don`t even exist on their flat earth climatology globe where all the temperatures are higher than they really were where they have been recorded.



More denier cult anti-science insanity...as perceived by retards. Nothing to do with the reality of the science.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> I already proved you wrong and debunked your lies many, many times, you cultic troll. You moronically reject and deny the scientific evidence every time, so why bother to go through that cycle again?



The only thing you have proved thus far is that you apparently have no idea of what actual evidence supporting AGW over natural variability looks like...and it is you folks who stop short of providing evidence and start repeating the cycle...you provide evidence of a changing climate because you can find no evidence supporting AGW over natural variability and then claim that you have, and I can only suppose it is because you really don't grasp the difference between evidence of change and evidence of the cause of the change which goes a long way towards explaining how you became so duped.

I merely asked you to pull out something...anything from all the stuff you posted that you believe represented observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...and you can't do it...you post great steaming piles of bullshit hoping that no one will notice that there is actually nothing there...and when asked to pull the part of it out that you think represents evidence supporting your belief...you can't do it...

But once again...thanks for proving my point...when I ask for the actual evidence...none of you can step up and deliver...great mounds of bullshit is all that you, or any other warmer has.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> I already proved you wrong and debunked your lies many, many times, you cultic troll. You moronically reject and deny the scientific evidence every time, so why bother to go through that cycle again?
> 
> Your unsupported denial of reality has no significance at all. You demand 'evidence' and you have received such evidence many times, but you never have any actual evidence to support your own BS claims that contradict the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality of AGW.
> 
> You are a moronic anti-science denier cult troll, stooging for the billionaires at the top of the fossil fuel industry. Fuck off!





SSDD said:


> The only thing you have proved thus far is that you apparently have no idea of what actual evidence supporting AGW over natural variability looks like...


Nope! That's what _you_ have proved....in addition to the fact that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

The evidence is there and you have seen it....but, as I have said before, it is obvious that you are just too retarded, deluded and brainwashed to either understand or accept the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Denying the reality of the evidence for AGW no matter how many times it is shown to you is either outright insanity or a denier cult tactic of reality denial. Either way, FUCK OFF!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > I already proved you wrong and debunked your lies many, many times, you cultic troll. You moronically reject and deny the scientific evidence every time, so why bother to go through that cycle again?
> ...


son, the next time you show us evidence would be the first time you ever have.  to date there has been no evidence of man made influence on climate.  It just doesn't exist.  Sorry fella.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> I already proved you wrong and debunked your lies many, many times, you cultic troll. You moronically reject and deny the scientific evidence every time, so why bother to go through that cycle again?
> 
> Your unsupported denial of reality has no significance at all. You demand 'evidence' and you have received such evidence many times, but you never have any actual evidence to support your own BS claims that contradict the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality of AGW.
> 
> You are a moronic anti-science denier cult troll, stooging for the billionaires at the top of the fossil fuel industry. Fuck off!





SSDD said:


> The only thing you have proved thus far is that you apparently have no idea of what actual evidence supporting AGW over natural variability looks like...





RollingThunder said:


> Nope! That's what _you_ have proved....in addition to the fact that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
> 
> The evidence is there and you have seen it....but, as I have said before, it is obvious that you are just too retarded, deluded and brainwashed to either understand or accept the overwhelming scientific evidence.
> 
> Denying the reality of the evidence for AGW no matter how many times it is shown to you is either outright insanity or a denier cult tactic of reality denial. Either way, FUCK OFF!





jc456 said:


> son, the next time you show us evidence would be the first time you ever have.  to date there has been no evidence of man made influence on climate.  It just doesn't exist.  Sorry fella.



And the anti-science retard spews more denier cult insanity.

Why is that insanity?

Because the reality is that the world scientific community almost unimously affirms the reality of human caused global warming/climate changes based on overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence from many different fields of science. Evidence strong and obvious to  convince most government and business leaders, the Pentagon, and the majority of the population. At this point, only the insane fools who are blinded by their crackpot rightwingnut corporatist 'libertarian' political/economic ideologies (and/or the paid stooges for some of the oil, coal and gas billionaires and top corporate executives) can say with a straight face: "_to date there has been no evidence of man made influence on climate.  It just doesn't exist_". That kind of rejection of reality, whether self induced for greed _or_ ideology, is definitely insane.....that is the legal definition of insanity.

*insanity - n. - mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.*

*Scientific opinion on climate change*
*The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] *


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> And the anti-science retard spews more denier cult insanity.
> 
> Why is that insanity?



Sorry thunder, but once again, all you have proved is that you clearly don't have any idea what actual empirical evidence that humans are causing the global climate to change might look like..  Hell thunder, look at what you provide as evidence...

*"Scientific opinion on climate change"
*
Got any idea what the operational word might be in that sentence?...OPINION...what you provide as evidence of human caused climate change is stated to be opinion right there in the title...It doesn't mention anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that we are causing a change in the global climate...it states an opinion...an opinion not supported by the first piece of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence.  The whole piece is full of weasel words...likely...opinion....probable...judgement...  The only thing they say that is unequivocal..that would be because there is evidence to support the claim is that the climate changes...and there is ample evidence to support that..but there isn't the first shred of evidence to support the claim that what changes we are seeing are man made vs natural variability.

Then you move on to this:

*No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. 
*
Again....the operational word there is OPINION..once again...a statement of opinion...not a presentation of actual, observed, measured, quantified evidence...a statement of opinion and nothing more.

*"insanity - n. - mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality."
*
You look at the above statements and apparently see observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of man made climate change....but an actual look at the content reveals that it is nothing more than opinion...opinion as stated by the author.  You see observed, measured, quantified evidence when the author states that it is opinion.  Reality is that the claim of man made climate change is opinion...fantasy is that there is actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the opinion.  If such evidence existed, then it would not be opinion..  Just a quick glance at what you believe to be evidence  is not...therefore, it is demonstrably you who is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality.  If you had a grasp on reality, then you would realize that you are posting opinion rather than actual evidence.


----------



## Crick (Apr 13, 2017)

There are thousands of studies, filled with empirical evidence that support AGW.  That's why 99 out of 100 climate scientists accept it as settled science.  That you hold the opinions you do is explainable solely by ignorance, profound dishonesty or both.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 13, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> And the anti-science retard spews more denier cult insanity.
> 
> Why is that insanity?
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder, but once again, all you have proved is that you clearly don't have any idea what actual empirical evidence that humans are causing the global climate to change might look like..  Hell thunder, look at what you provide as evidence...
> 
> *"Scientific opinion on climate change"
> *
> ...



Your moronic inability to comprehend the actual meaning of language, and your stupid attempts to spin reality around your clueless or deliberate misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'opinion', and your idiotic denial of the existence of scientific evidence that you have seen, are all just further proof of your utter insanity and of the fact that you are a denier cult troll, SSoooDDumb.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> There are thousands of studies, filled with empirical evidence that support AGW.  That's why 99 out of 100 climate scientists accept it as settled science.  That you hold the opinions you do is explainable solely by ignorance, profound dishonesty or both.




No...there are thousands of studies that support the claim of a changing climate...there are zero that provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...

And historically, 99 out of 100 scientists have always accepted pseudoscience as settled science till they don't...


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2017)

You're an idiot and a liar.  Your concepts on radiative heat transfer and the behavior or CO2 in the atmosphere are complete idiocy. Attempted to debate you on any of this violates the advice of not arguing with fools as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> You're an idiot and a liar.  Your concepts on radiative heat transfer and the behavior or CO2 in the atmosphere are complete idiocy. Attempted to debate you on any of this violates the advice of not arguing with fools as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.



And I can't help but notice that once again, rather than slap me down with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability, you retreat, as you always do to name calling, and logical fallacy.  Interesting...don't you think?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2017)

Liar.  I have buried you in empirical evidence.  You simply lie and deny it exists.  Where is YOUR evidence?  Where do you see global temperatures dropping?  What causation do YOU have for the warming of the past 150 years?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 15, 2017)

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> Liar.  I have buried you in empirical evidence.  You simply lie and deny it exists.  Where is YOUR evidence?  Where do you see global temperatures dropping?  What causation do YOU have for the warming of the past 150 years?




No...you have attempted to bury me under claims that you have provided the sort of evidence I asked for...when in reality, it is just more dishonesty on your part...note your claim as a reference...you claim to have provided empirical evidence..which you have...as with all warmers, you provide evidence that the climate changes...but what you haven't, nor can you produce is observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is causing it...you are either a deliberate liar...or so intellectually challenged that you can't differentiate between evidence that the climate changes and evidence that man is causing said change....or my personal suspicion..both...


The warming of the past 150 years is just a continuation of the warming that brought the world out of the little ice age.  As to causation..we aren't sure...we are sure of very little with regard to what drives the climate...hell, we are just now beginning to get a handle on the long cycles and are still some time away from recognizing all the short cycles and a long time away from understanding how they affect and interact with each other...and are just scratching the surface with regard to how energy moves through the entire system...anyone who believes they can point a finger at a specific cause for the climate is either an abject idiot or a bald faced liar...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.
> 
> Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.




So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > And the anti-science retard spews more denier cult insanity.
> ...


so what is your definition of opinion?  Is it indeed as SSDD stated, the word 'observed'? So you believe an opinion is fact?  is that it?  please, cough, stop......


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> Liar.  I have buried you in empirical evidence.  You simply lie and deny it exists.  Where is YOUR evidence?  Where do you see global temperatures dropping?  What causation do YOU have for the warming of the past 150 years?


sure you have, cough,


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.
> 
> Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.


did you say something?  All I hear is white noise.  get it white noise?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.
> 
> Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.





SSDD said:


> So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.





jc456 said:


> did you say something?  All I hear is white noise.  get it white noise?



And there go some good example of 'empty noise'.....all the way from the meaningless deranged drivel they post to the vacuity inside of their heads.

Meanwhile, This thread and its idiotic OP were still quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.
> ...


Or Not!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.
> 
> Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.





SSDD said:


> So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.





jc456 said:


> did you say something?  All I hear is white noise.  get it white noise?





RollingThunder said:


> And there go some good example of 'empty noise'.....all the way from the meaningless deranged drivel they post to the vacuity inside of their heads.
> 
> Meanwhile, This thread and its idiotic OP were still quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.





jc456 said:


> Or Not!


Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.
> ...


Or Not!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Or Not!



Only in your insane asylum, JustCrazy, only in your insane asylum.

Too bad you are so completely out of touch with the real world, you poor delusional retard.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Or Not!
> ...


so still nothing I see.  OP stands.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> [
> Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.
> 
> And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.



Sorry thunder....roy was debunked post haste on that little experiment...the manufacturer of the infrared thermometer he was using contacted him and told him point blank that the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..like so many climate change believers, he is apparently easily fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


*
the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..*

It was measuring temperature. How did it manage to do that?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It is measuring IR radiation but the problem with doing that with the IR gun Spencer used is that the temperature is computed by the instrument assuming an emissivity of 0.9 for everything it is pointed at.
And in add in addition to that the instrument reading does not give you a true reading of the watts/m^2 of a distant spot...which increases in size at larger distances and assumes that the entire area radiates nearly at the same intensity as the hotter spots in it. In other words the cooler regions don`t affect the reading as much as they should.
So if he points it straight up at the sky pick a distance and use 1/24 th of it as the spot radius and square it times pi. How sure are you that the entire area in that (huge) spot is at the same temperature?
Maybe some where in the middle of a huge desert at a cloudless night sky it is...but no way would it be at a uniform temperature when the terrain is not all the same...with parking lots, buildings, or forest with clearings, farm fields, rivers and lakes etc. Get the picture?
I`m also quite certain he would have seen a whole lot less "back radiation" in the mid-west and the western parts of the USA:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2017)

polarbear said:


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


*
the instrument assuming an emissivity of 0.9 for everything it is pointed at.*

And even with the wrong emissivity, it still manages to measure "colder photons", back-radiation.
*
I`m also quite certain he would have seen a whole lot less "back radiation" in the mid-west and the western parts of the USA:*

And why is that?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Been through it all with you before...but like all warmers and luke warmers, you so quickly forget anything that doesn't support your beliefs..



> To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s  misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “*avoid interference from CO2 and H2O*.”  [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!
> 
> Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted.  Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer  did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims.



Just one more instance of a warmer...or luke warmer being fooled by his instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> the instrument assuming an emissivity of 0.9 for everything it is pointed at.*
> 
> And even with the wrong emissivity, it still manages to measure "colder photons", back-radiation.



Actually it is measuring warm air moving upwards...why would you assume that it is measuring "back" anything?  Do you think an IR thermometer can only measure energy moving towards it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*Been through it all with you before...but like all warmers and luke warmers, you so quickly forget anything that doesn't support your beliefs..*

I'm an anti-warmer. Just tired of idiocy on my side of the debate.

*for confirmation of Spencer’s  misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming*

They don't show downward LWIR?

Professor Claes Johnson

Claes is funny. A funny idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*Actually it is measuring warm air moving upwards...*

Excellent! How does it measure the air....from a distance?

*Do you think an IR thermometer can only measure energy moving towards it?*

Do you think an IR thermometer can measure energy moving away from it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Been through it all with you before...but like all warmers and luke warmers, you so quickly forget anything that doesn't support your beliefs..*
> 
> I'm an anti-warmer. Just tired of idiocy on my side of the debate.



No...you are a warmer..you believe in the magic just as much as rocks, the hairball, and crick..you just don't believe the magic is as powerful as they do.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> They don't show downward LWIR?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Actually it is measuring warm air moving upwards...*
> 
> Excellent! How does it measure the air....from a distance?



Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..

An IR thermometer works based on the rate and amount of temperature change of an internal thermopile....look at the front of an IR thermometer...see the lens?...it is focused on a thermopile.  When you point it at some object, the lens focuses the object on the thermopile.  If the object is warmer than the instrument, the thermopile starts to heat up.  The thermopile emits an electrical signal based on the amount of, and rate of its temperature change...that signal is modeled and is converted into a temperature.  

If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.  Again, an electrical signal is emitted, based on the amount of, and rate of temperature change...in this case cooling.  The emitted signal is modeled and is converted to a temperature.

This isn't rocket science...information on how IR thermometers, and IR cameras and all sorts of equipment that regularly fool climate crazies is available on the internet..and it is easy enough to email a manufacturer...an engineer will almost always email you back explaining whatever isn't being explained on the internet.  

Why would people use instrumentation in scientific pursuits that when they don't fully understand what it is that the instrument is measuring...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you think an IR thermometer can measure energy moving away from it?


d

Of course...as I have pointed out to you in the past...and provided documentation from manufacturers...the instrument works by focusing an object, via a lens on an internal thermopile.  If the object is warmer then the thermopile heats up and the electrical signal based on the amount of heating, and the rate of heating is converted by a model into a temperature...

If the object is cooler, then the thermopile starts losing energy to the object...an electrical signal indicating the rate of cooling and the amount of cooling is then converted to a temperature.  

If the thermopile didn't register heat loss, then it would only be able to measure objects that are hotter than the instrument...  

So let me guess...you didn't think that an IR thermometer could measure energy moving away from it...because of your belief that everything is radiating energy to the instrument itself.  You believe this even though no measurement of energy from a cool object has ever been made with an instrument that is warmer than the cooler object...You never even considered the actual operation of such an instrument.. you simply assume it works in some fashion based on your belief.  

The concept of a thermopile losing heat to a cooler object in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics never occurred to you.  That would be because you are a warmer.. you believe in the magic as fully as any other warmer.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..



And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?



> If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.



That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Actually it is measuring warm air moving upwards...*
> ...



*An IR thermometer works based on the rate and amount of temperature change of an internal thermopile....look at the front of an IR thermometer...see the lens?...*

Excellent! That requires photons to hit the lens.

*If the object is cooler, then the thermopile starts losing energy to the object...*

The thermopile knows to emit toward a cooler object but not toward a warmer object? How's that work?

*So let me guess...you didn't think that an IR thermometer could measure energy moving away from it*

Sorry, your muddled thinking sounded like "measure photons traveling from the target in a direction other than toward the thermometer"

*The concept of a thermopile losing heat to a cooler object in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics never occurred to you.*

But of course reality occurred to me, that's why I mock your one-way, smart photon fantasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Been through it all with you before...but like all warmers and luke warmers, you so quickly forget anything that doesn't support your beliefs..*
> ...


*
And yet, his arguments prevailed with Judith Curry...*

Judith doesn't believe in downward LWIR? Link?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> > If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.
> 
> 
> 
> That's where your 'tard theory craters.



Sorry hairball...I am afraid that you are the wacko...I have already provided you enough information that a reasonable person would have dropped the wacko beliefs but you must have wacko right down to your bones...no amount of actual science will ever convince you to leave your cult beliefs.



mamooth said:


> According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.



Where did you ever get that idea?  Is it some craziness that you just made up to argue against...Here, from the handbook of modern sensors...



> Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.
> 
> If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. *If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, *meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive



It is all about the difference between the temperature of the object the sensor is pointed at and the sensor itself...The greater the difference, the more temperature change is realized and the more rapidly the temperature changes...The notion that the temperature flux between the sensor and the object remains the same no matter how much the two temperatures differ is just stupid and only an idiot would think of it...



mamooth said:


> That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.



Sorry hairball, you apparently just don't grasp the actual science that is happening here...trying to apply your fantasy to reality just doesn't work....The thermopile gains heat and warms up if the object it is pointed at is warmer...if it is slightly warmer, it doesn't gain as much heat and doesn't warm as quickly as if the object is a great deal warmer...the same is true if it is cooler...if the object is slightly cooler, the temperature only changes slightly and the rate is slower...if the object is very much colder, the rate of change is more rapid and the amount of change is greater...these changes cause electrical signals which are converted into a numerical temperature.



mamooth said:


> Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.



Yes...for the very reason I just described.



mamooth said:


> Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.



I have no theory...I have fact as described by the engineers who design and build the devices...refer above to the handbook of modern sensors...it is you who is operating from a position of theory...and your theory doesn't match the fact as described by the engineers who design and build the devices...your theory is based on your wacko beliefs and they simply don't equate to reality... Here is a link to the book itself...

Amazon.com: handbook of modern sensors: Books



mamooth said:


> You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.



Sorry hairball, but it is you who runs...whenever I post information from the manufacturers or designers of the devices stating that they operate on the principles I have described, you run away and don't show up on the threads again..then when the topic comes up again..you post the same old misinformed bullshit, to which I post the information again from the manufacturers and designers, and you run away again.



mamooth said:


> Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.



Sorry hairball...the handbook of modern sensors...and the manufacturers information sites say that you are the f'ing tard...the instruments operate on the principles I have described...



mamooth said:


> I blame the education system,



You should because it has failed you miserably.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

Back to smart photons again?

SSDD gave a reference to an IR gun manufacturer, I recommend that people read it. It states the the gun only uses wavelengths that are in the atmospheric window, eg they are unimpeded by the atmosphere. Any radiation detected is therefore coming from the atmosphere and is unaffected by distance.

Now try an experiment. Point the gun straight up and measure. Then reduce the angle in 15 degree increments. It will be coolest at the right angle and read the ambient temperature at zero degrees. I will leave it to you to mull over why this happens.

SSDD says no radiation is ever produced that goes from cool to warm but this cannot explain the difference between something 1C cooler or 100C cooler. It necessitates a smart emitter or receptor that controls radiation by an unknown mechanism which defies the entropy laws.

One the other hand, recognized science states everything radiates according to temperature all the time and heat flows in the direction of preponderance of net  radiation. There is no need for magic, just count up the photons going each way and the net excess will describe the heat flows.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If the object is cooler, then the thermopile starts losing energy to the object...*
> 
> The thermopile knows to emit toward a cooler object but not toward a warmer object? How's that work?



Not necessary any more than a rock must know to fall.  Perhaps you should refer to the Handbook of Modern Sensors..Physics, Designs, and Applications which I just provided for the hairball...seems that neither one of you have the slightest idea of how the instruments we are talking about actually work...You simply assume that they work on your flawed understanding of thermodynamic principles and never bothered to actually check..  Well guess what...you are wrong and have been all along.  Here...from the Handbook of Modern Sensors...Physics, Designs, and Applications..


Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is *warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive*. *If the object is *cooler, the flux becomes negative*, *meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sorry, your muddled thinking sounded like "measure photons traveling from the target in a direction other than toward the thermometer"



Sorry roadster...you have to join the hairball in the dunce corner...you have a terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics...and oddly enough, the instruments at discussion seem to be working based on my understanding of thermodynamics....energy moves from warm to cool...not the other way around...point the lens at a cool object and the thermopile starts losing energy to that cooler object just as the 2nd law describes...the instrument then measures how much energy is being lost to the cooler object to determine the temperature....or are you not able to understand what the sentence: IF THE OBJECT IS COOLER, THE FLUX BECOMES NEGATIVE, MEANING THAT IT CHANGES ITS DIRECTION: THE HEAT GOES FROM THE SENSOR TO THE OBJECT.

It is a simple sentence...easy to understand and describes a device operating on the thermodynamic principles I have been describing all along...those being the direction of energy movement described in the second law of thermodynamics.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> But of course reality occurred to me, that's why I mock your one-way, smart photon fantasy.



Apparently not...because the instruments don't work based on your understanding of thermondyacmis...they work based on my understanding...I stated clearly:  *The concept of a thermopile losing heat to a cooler object in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics never occurred to you...*to which you suggested that such operation was not reality when in fact, it is reality and your understanding of thermodynamic exchange is not reality at all.  You mock my understanding of thermodynamics which turns out to be the basis upon which these instruments work...from your position of fantasy, you mock reality and perceive yourself as smart when in realty you are as stupid and uniformed as the hairball.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD says no radiation is ever produced that goes from cool to warm but this cannot explain the difference between something 1C cooler or 100C cooler. It necessitates a smart emitter or receptor that controls radiation by an unknown mechanism which defies the entropy laws.



And yet another one who doesn't have the slightest idea of how or why the instruments work...applying your terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics to the instruments and in doing so, fooling yourself completely with said instrumentation.

Here,  AGAIN...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors...Physics, Design, and Applications:

If the object is *warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive*. *If the object is *cooler, the flux becomes negative*,* meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The instrument works precisely on the very principles of thermodynamics that I have been arguing against fantasy believers like you and the rest of the wacko cadre of warmers and luke warmers.  The do not operate on principles even slightly resembling the terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics to which you and the rest of the wackos have fallen victim to....they operate on the principle of energy moving from warm to coo ONLY...  When the device is pointed at a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off because it is loosing heat to the cooler object...the rate and amount of cooling is converted to a numerical temperature...if the device is pointed at a warmer object...the thermopile starts warming...because the object is losing heat to the thermopile...the rate and amount of warming is converted to a numerical temperature.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD says no radiation is ever produced that goes from cool to warm but this cannot explain the difference between something 1C cooler or 100C cooler. It necessitates a smart emitter or receptor that controls radiation by an unknown mechanism which defies the entropy laws.
> ...




We have been arguing about this since you joined the board just after wirebender left.

The crux of the matter lies in how we view two objects at the same temperature. I say they both freely radiate at each other but it cancels out and there is no flow of heat. You say they both stop radiating, in defiance of entropy laws.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..
> ...


actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with.  SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously.  And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion.  back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If the object is cooler, then the thermopile starts losing energy to the object...*
> ...



_If the object is _*warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive*_. _*If the object is *_cooler, the flux becomes negative_*, *_meaning it changes its direction:  _*the heat goes from the sensor to the object. 
*
Right, with no exchange of information, the sensor suddenly decides it can emit. LOL!

*...you have a terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics..*

Smart photons, smart emitters and one-way flow of photons. DERP!

*The concept of a thermopile losing heat to a cooler object in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics never occurred to you...*

Of course it did. Photons move from the thermopile to the object and from the object to the thermopile.
The temperature difference will tell us in which direction the net flow moves. 

*You mock my understanding of thermodynamics*

Your confusion is amusing.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes. 

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


well of course the atmosphere radiates.  who ever said it doesn't?  The argument has always been the direction of the radiation.  Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area?  heat flows toward cold always.  the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation.*

I say it radiates in all directions. All the time. See Stefan-Boltzmann for more detail.

Which direction do you feel it radiates?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.*

Do you feel that info said anything about one-way only flows of photons?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




The article is good. It refutes SSDD'S position.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2017)

Well, this goes against 150 years of science. Who should I side with? Every scientific institutions on this planet or some message board posters.

Yep, I am such a dumbass for siding with the scientist.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


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


I suppose almost all of you believe that absorbed radiation has no other choice than to warm the material which absorbed it. And anyone who says different is being called an idiot by the forum photon experts.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


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


and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.  none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe.  Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct.  just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.* 

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you have?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Actrually, I say that objects in a vacuum radiate according to their temperature and objects not in a vacuum radiate according to the temperature (s) of their surroundings as stated by the SB law...you seem unable to stop making up arguments for me.....why is it that you can't simply stick to what I say?  I am direct...unambiguous...and always say what I mean to say.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.
> 
> The obvious answer is yes.



No...the obvious answer is no...the bulk of the atmosphere does not radiate at all...convection and conduction are kings where energy movement through the atmosphere is concerned...radiation is a bit player....only certain components in the atmosphere radiate...and they do nothing but hasten energy on its way to the TOA...they do not radiate back towards the warmer surface.



IanC said:


> The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.



The IR gun tells you whether the internal thermopile is warming or cooling relative to the temperature of the instrument itself...nothing more..if the ambient temperature is higher than the temperature of the instrument...the thermopile is warming...if the ambient temperature is lower than that of the instrument, the thermopile is cooling.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

polarbear said:


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




Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.



No.., heat is internal energy that is transferred to a physical system from outside the system because of a difference in temperature and does not result in work done by the system on its surroundings. Absorption of energy by a system as heat takes the form of increased kinetic energy of its molecules, thus resulting in an increase in temperature of the system. Heat is transferred from one system to another in the direction of higher to lower temperature

Simply making stuff up because it is what you believe is what warmers do..and pseudoscientists...and liars....there is no net exchange...it has not and never will be measured...net energy exchange only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.



IanC said:


> Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.



Here in the second decade of the 21st century, photons remain theoretical particles...I never fail to get a chuckle from people who talk about them as if they were not only real, but that they actually know what they are doing.   The bottom line is that you don't even know whether photons exist or not...and you damned sure don't know what they are doing if they do exist...any suggestion on your part that you know either is nothing more than self delusion.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
> Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?



Because they were made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...so they were only measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...turn off the cooling system in the instrument and just like closing a door, the measurement of downward radiation cuts off.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.



So says the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...net flow is fantasy.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


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




Okay. I'll ask you yet again for a concise answer. Two objects, same temperature, do they continue to radiate according to their temperature or is the emission throttled down somehow?

My understanding is that they do continue to radiate but that the gains and losses even out for no net movement of heat.

You, on the other hand say radiation can only be created if it is traveling to a cooler object. How does the temperature of the receiving matter adjust the internal conditions of the emitting matter in such a way as to stop the emmision?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Okay. I'll ask you yet again for a concise answer. Two objects, same temperature, do they continue to radiate according to their temperature or is the emission throttled down somehow?



I have given you a concise answer so many times now it is becoming comical for you to continue to ask...






   Set T and Tc to the same temperature...now...what is the value of P?  How much more concise can I get than that?  It is the answer that the SB LAW gives you.  I am afraid that it isn't my problem if you won't accept the answer that the equations associated with the physical law provide.



IanC said:


> My understanding is that they do continue to radiate but that the gains and losses even out for no net movement of heat.



It is already demonstrated that your understanding is flawed...on the other thread I provided credible information to you that stated in clear unambiguous language that the instruments operated according to my understanding of the physical laws...not yours...but then, I don't try to interpret them..or add or subtract information that isn't there...I simply accept them at face value.



IanC said:


> You, on the other hand say radiation can only be created if it is traveling to a cooler object. How does the temperature of the receiving matter adjust the internal conditions of the emitting matter in such a way as to stop the emmision?



Actually, that isn't what I say at all....but then you have a real problem simply arguing against what I say..you find that you must make up something then attribute it to me and then argue against that....ever wonder why you find that you must do that?  

As to how?  How does gravity work?  We know much more about gravity than we do about energy transmission...so describe for me the fundamental mechanism of gravity.

I don't need to know how..or why....I only need know that every observation ever made tells us that energy movement is gross, not net and in the direction of warm to cool....which is exactly what the second law of thermodynamics states...net is a product of post modern belief in models over observation...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable...


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.
> ...




Heat is the net flow from one object to another. Both objects are continuously radiating.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


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



So you say...and who told you?...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  Me, I will stick with every observation and measurement ever made and the physical law as it is stated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2017)

T1^4 - T2^4 equals zero if they are the same. That does not mean that T1 and T2 have a zero value.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
> ...



*Because they were made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere*

I want to know how the cooler atmosphere "knows" not to emit toward the warmer surface and suddenly, with no exchange of information, "senses" that it is safe to emit downward because an instrument has just been cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere?

How does the atmosphere learn to emit downward in that case, at just that instant?
*
...turn off the cooling system in the instrument and just like closing a door, the measurement of downward radiation cuts off*

Do you think that radiation ceases just because it's not measured? How quaint.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> T1^4 - T2^4 equals zero if they are the same. That does not mean that T1 and T2 have a zero value.



Don't be obtuse....Set T and Tc to the same number...what does that make P...and by definition what is P.  Again...it isn't my fault if you don't like the answer the physical law gives you...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I want to know how the cooler atmosphere "knows" not to emit toward the warmer surface and suddenly, with no exchange of information, "senses" that it is safe to emit downward because an instrument has just been cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere?



And I want to know how dropped rocks "know" to fall down...and how air on the outside of a punctured tire "knows" not to rush in...and how free electrons "know" which way to move along an electrical wire...and the winning power ball number this weekend...just because you want to know something doesn't mean that you get to know it...till we learn more about energy movement and exchange, we have to be satisfied with every observation and measurement ever made...energy moves in one direction...from less entropy to more entropy...from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state (cool).  tough cookies that you don't get to know why at this point in history...none of us do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I want to know how the cooler atmosphere "knows" not to emit toward the warmer surface and suddenly, with no exchange of information, "senses" that it is safe to emit downward because an instrument has just been cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere?
> ...



*And I want to know how dropped rocks "know" to fall down*

Because mass curves spacetime.

Now, back to your smart emitter claim.
*
...just because you want to know something doesn't mean that you get to know it...*

That's a long way of saying you have no proof for your silly claim....but ok.

*...energy moves in one direction*

Still hilarious.

_Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech._
_http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html_
_ "[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
_
_http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity_
_ Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” 
_
_https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium_
_ In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux
_
_Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events_
_ One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.
_
_What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD_
_ Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
_
_http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm_
_ Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it _*will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat*_ so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914._
_http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf_
_ Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random _*exchange by radiation *_equal amounts of heat with each other..."

_
In Support of the A in AGW

Those guys, who knew so much less than you, seemed to understand that at equilibrium, radiation continues to be emitted and absorbed at the same time.
How did you get to know so much more than them?
Where have you published your incredible wisdom?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because mass curves spacetime.
> 
> Now, back to your smart emitter claim.



Dodging the fact that we don't know what the basic mechanism of gravity is?  Dishonesty along with smoke and mirrors seems to be all you guys have.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's a long way of saying you have no proof for your silly claim....but ok.



No..that is the truthful way to say that science is just starting to scratch the surface as to the how and why of most things...we have buckets full of observation, but very little real grasp of the how and why...again, don't worry about not being honest because I don't expect it from you.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still hilarious.



And yet, that is what the physical law says.  

_


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?
		
Click to expand...


Nope...I just accept the physical law as it is stated...if it says P=zero, then I accept that P is zero...I don't try to make it obey or mesh with an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model as is the case with far to much post modern "science"...
_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Because mass curves spacetime.
> ...



_Nope...I just accept the physical law as it is stated...if it says P=zero, then I accept that P is zero...
_
They also accepted that when P=zero that P is zero.
While knowing that emissions didn't cease.

So when did you discover their error? How fast after you published your findings until you received
your Nobel Prize in Physics? Such a huge discovery....it must have been quick, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They also accepted that when P=zero that P is zero.
> While knowing that emissions didn't cease.



Guess in addition to everything else you don't know...the meaning of zero escapes you as well.  Here, let me help you out....from the science dictionary...

zero - The numerical symbol 0, representing a number that when added to another number leaves the original number unchanged.  Out here in the real world zero means zero....apparently in your fantasy world zero means something else....that should clue you in to how wrong you are..but alas, it doesn't.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So when did you discover their error? How fast after you published your findings until you received
> your Nobel Prize in Physics? Such a huge discovery....it must have been quick, eh?



Not my discovery...Stefan-Boltzman discovered it....I, unlike you, can read an equation and know what it means...and I, also unlike you, know what zero means.  Appeal to ridicule is just one more impotent trick in the bag of tricks you use to hide the fact that you are completely unable to debate this, or any other topic in detail...you are limited to idiotic one liners.  Your inability to debate any topic beyond the juvenile question of why has not gone unnoticed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They also accepted that when P=zero that P is zero.
> ...



*Guess in addition to everything else you don't know...the meaning of zero escapes you as well. Here, let me help you out....from the science dictionary...*

Does that definition also say matter stops radiating at equilibrium? LOL!

*Not my discovery...Stefan-Boltzman discovered it....*

They discovered it before all those real scientists talked about equilibrium. How did you discover they were all wrong about Stefan-Boltzmann?
*
Appeal to ridicule is just one more impotent trick in the bag of tricks you use to hide the fact that you are completely unable to debate this*

Debate?
Did you ever explain how that cooler matter on the Sun's surface manages to emit through the hotter corona?

I must have missed your Nobel winning explanation, please post it again, so we can debate your idiocy...then I can stop merely ridiculing your idiocy. Thanks!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does that definition also say matter stops radiating at equilibrium? LOL!



Nope...merely a definition of zero...a number you clearly don't understand.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> They discovered it before all those real scientists talked about equilibrium. How did you discover they were all wrong about Stefan-Boltzmann?



You mean back when science was based on experiment, measurement, observation, and actually testing hypotheses and tossing them out if they don't match up with reality as opposed to modern "science" which depends far to heavily on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models......




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Debate?
> Did you ever explain how that cooler matter on the Sun's surface manages to emit through the hotter corona?



Excellent example demonstrating my point perfectly.....thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Does that definition also say matter stops radiating at equilibrium? LOL!
> ...



*Nope...merely a definition of zero...a number you clearly don't understand.*

I understand no loss of energy at equilibrium.
Do you understand continued emission, at all temps above 0K, even at equilibrium?

*You mean back when science was based on experiment, measurement, observation, and actually testing hypotheses and tossing them out if they don't match up with reality*

Yes! Which is how Riedl, Kirchoff, Spencer, Einstein and Planck came to their conclusions about matter at equilibrium. How did you come to your conclusion that they were all wrong?

Perhaps you could post your Nobel acceptance speech?

*Excellent example demonstrating my point perfectly.....thanks.*

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 18, 2017)

IanC said:


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


_Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted_
Often true but not quite and  not always.

There are circumstances where radiation is absorbed, emitted  and in the process the material which is re-emitting it cools down to a lower temperature than it was before it absorbed the photons.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.



Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm.  So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 19, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat  can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
> That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
> They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
> ...



I'm sorry, WHAT? Who has ever said that cold air warms warmer air? You're the first person I've ever heard say that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.
> ...



*Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim*

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

*So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..*

It never said that.

*anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong*

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

_Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech._
_http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html_
_ "[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
_
_http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity_
_ Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” 
_
_https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium_
_ In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux
_
_Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events_
_ One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.
_
_What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD_
_ Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
_
_http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm_
_ Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it _*will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat*_ so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914._
_http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf_
_ Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random _*exchange by radiation *_equal amounts of heat with each other..." _

_

_


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
> ...


_I'm sorry, WHAT? Who has ever said that cold air warms warmer air? You're the first person I've ever heard say that_
Why are you asking me? You should ask the backradiation planet warmer society. They are the ones who make that claim and I haven`t seen them make an exception for air not being able to radiate. Have you?
Physics laws are universal they don`t require your or your occult`s consent


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven._
How many more times does that have to be explained to you?
I told you at least 3 times that the corona is *ionized* which means that it can`t absorb with electrons that are not where they need to be in order to absorb
_These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong._
No scientist ever said that so there is nobody that could be proven wrong except the straw man scientist you just invented.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.
> ...



From what you've been telling us for years, obviously.

Your crank theory states that an object either radiates at full strength towards a colder object, or cuts off radiating instantly and completely if the object is warmer. There's no in-between. Your theory also states the colder object can send absolutely zero energy to the warmer object.

Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.



> The notion that the temperature flux between the sensor and the object remains the same no matter how much the two temperatures differ is just stupid and only an idiot would think of it...



Yet it's what you've been screaming at us for years, which means you're self-classifying yourself as an idiot. With this latest flipflop, your theory hasn't gotten any less dumb, and it's now self-contradicting, so it's gotten worse.



mamooth said:


> I have no theory...I have fact as described by the engineers who design and build the devices...refer above to the handbook of modern sensors...



No, you copied part a correct theory that contradicts your crank theory, and now you're lying big by pretending that the correct theory is actually the same as your crank theory.

We all now agree that the thermopile should lose more heat when pointed at a colder object.

The normal people here can use the S-B equation to show how that happens.

You can't. Your one-way distortion of the S-B equation makes that impossible. Under your theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat in both cases.

If you disagree, simply show us the math. That will be difficult, being you've been doubling down over and over on your incorrect version of the equation, meaning you won't be able to suddenly flipflop to the correct version.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2017)

mamooth said:


> From what you've been telling us for years, obviously.



Sorry hairball...once again, you prove that you simply can't keep up with adult conversation...I have never said anything even remotely like that...Either you are to stupid to keep up...or you are just making it up as you go.



mamooth said:


> Your crank theory states that an object either radiates at full strength towards a colder object, or cuts off radiating instantly and completely if the object is warmer. There's no in-between. Your theory also states the colder object can send absolutely zero energy to the warmer object.



I have no theory...I only have the laws of thermodynamics...and the laws of thermodynamics certainly say no such thing.  Ian often claims that objects radiate all the time in all directions according to their temperature, but i am quick to point out his error on that point....

The SB equations which I routinely use state explicitly that objects do not radiate at full strength all the time...






That equation states explicitly that an object radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its environment.  I couldn't say how many times I have made that statement and yet, you fail completely to understand it.  That would be because you are an idiot.



mamooth said:


> Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.



Therefore you are an idiot...as I have demonstrated, you couldn't possibly have misconstrued my position more...



mamooth said:


> Yet it's what you've been screaming at us for years, which means you're self-classifying yourself as an idiot. With this latest flipflop, your theory hasn't gotten any less dumb, and it's now self-contradicting, so it's gotten worse.



Not even close...but if you care to provide a quote from me saying such a thing, by all means bring it forward....or just admit that you aren't bright enough to actually understand and comprehend much of what anyone says.




mamooth said:


> No, you copied part a correct theory that contradicts your crank theory, and now you're lying big by pretending that the correct theory is actually the same as your crank theory.



Again...I copied how the instruments work which meshes exactly with what I have been stating all along...your misunderstanding of what I have been saying is so profound that you really should be embarrassed off the board for even stating it.



mamooth said:


> We all now agree that the thermopile should lose more heat when pointed at a colder object.



Now you are going to claim that you have been claiming all along that the temperature is due to energy flowing away from the instrument rather than cool radiation flowing towards it?....what a load of bullshit.

Here is just one instance of you claiming just the opposite.



			
				hairball said:
			
		

> And I've pointed out you're a lying sack of shit, as cheap uncooled consumer electronics show that backradiation with great precision.



that post is here:   Arctic Ice

and it goes on with you claiming that the cool radiation from the sky is what the sensor array is receiving and measuring rather than the FACT that it is measuring its loss of heat to the cooler sky.



mamooth said:


> You can't. Your one-way distortion of the S-B equation makes that impossible. Under your theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat in both cases.



The SB equation describes a one way movement of energy..from cool to warm...but if you think otherwise..I provided the equation above....do feel free to show where you believe it describes a two way energy exchange...and again...I have no theory...the SB equation says that the amount of radiation an object radiates is dictated by the temperature of its environment...that amount changes and can go into negative numbers when the environment is warmer than the radiator.  I still can't believe how incredibly badly you have been misunderstanding my position for all this time...had you the faintest clue of how to read a relatively simple equation  (from above) you would have understood my position perfectly.



mamooth said:


> If you disagree, simply show us the math. That will be difficult, being you've been doubling down over and over on your incorrect version of the equation, meaning you won't be able to suddenly flipflop to the correct version.



The math is shown above...sorry it is so far over your head.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2017)

IanC said:


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


what happens to all of the conduction and convection?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sorry, that isn't evidence of anything discussed in here.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The SB equations which I routinely use state explicitly that objects do not radiate at full strength all the time...



Oh, so you're completely insane, and far more stupid than anyone could have imagined.

Sorry. I had assumed you weren't the biggest retard to ever walk planet earth. My bad. I won't make that mistake again.

Not only do you posit intelligent photons ... you posit an intelligent universe! In your deranged dimension, every atom literally knows the state of every other atom in the universe, and radiates accordingly.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

The most hilarious thing? You expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

polarbear said:


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



*How many more times does that have to be explained to you?*

I want SSDD to explain how cooler matter can emit toward and through hotter matter.
He claims that is impossible. Violates the 2nd Law.
I know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. I want him to admit it doesn't.

*No scientist ever said that so*

No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.

*except the straw man scientist you just invented.*

_Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck_

Straw men?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

mamooth said:


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



*Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.*

Not exactly.
He claims the thermopile will radiate more or less, based on the temperature of the target, even though, with no communication from the cooler target, it has no way to measure that target's temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface".


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface"_

yep, photons.  which you still haven't shown.  EXACTLY!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

jc456 said:


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







Photons, shown right here.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it is?  wow, I pictured them looking differently.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


All over sudden you deemed it necessary to change your statement in your post # 193 from this:
_These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong._ 
*
To this*
_No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.
*except the straw man scientist you just invented.*
Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck
Straw men?_
Which is something entirely different.
You have been boasting that these scientists have said "*energy moves from same to same*".
Show me a quote from Einstein then, his statement saying so should be the easiest because he is the most published one on your list. But Planck, Kirchhoff or Wien will do as well.
And you still insist that the ionized corona absorbs photons from the cooler surface.
Prove it! You can't but keep pretending...
And every time you are confronted you "answer" with a foolish question that is supposed to score a "win" for the nonsense statement you made in the first place if adults refuse to play along with these childish games in your kiddie physics sandbox...not much different from mammiemoh


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Not only do you posit intelligent photons ... you posit an intelligent universe! In your deranged dimension, every atom literally knows the state of every other atom in the universe, and radiates accordingly.



Poor hairball...what must it be like to be that f'ing stupid? 

Here, let me help you out just so it can never be said that I deliberately left an idiot to wallow in her ignorance...

This is the SB equation one uses when the radiator in question is not in a vacuum.






It states, specifically, that the amount of radiation (P) emitted by a radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant, times its area, times the difference between its own temperature to the 4th power and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power.  Unfortunate that you are so lacking in math skills that you can't read even a simple equation like that...but don't worry, you have lots of company here who are equally wanting in basic math skills.

So lets run a few numbers and see what the SB LAW...this is a physical law we are talking about here has to say about the amount of radiation emitted by an object under different circumstances...

For the purpose of this explanation, we are going to make the emissivity of the object 1 and it is going to be 1 square meter in size...

Example 1:  lets make the temperature of the object 78F and its surroundings 35F.  Plug those numbers into the SB equation and you will see that the object will be radiating 344.84w/m2

Example 2:  lets make the temperature of the object 105F and its surroundings 35F.  Plug the numbers into the SB equation and you will see that the object will be radiating 425.12w/m2

Example 3:  Lets make the temperature of the object 105F and its surroundings 105F.  Plug the numbers into the SB equation and you will see that the object will be radiating 0w/m2

Now feel free to deny the physical law all you like...feel free to believe whatever you like...after all, you are a top shelf wack job.



mamooth said:


> The most hilarious thing? You expect to be taken seriously.



Imagine...being so stupid as to think that accepting the answer a physical law is hilarious.  How stupid must you be...and how much your cult beliefs must have warped you in order for you to laugh at physical laws.

How do you suppose they ever got to be physical laws if the equations associated with them do not produce predictable, reliable, measurable results every time?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



_These scientists said energy moves from same to same. 
_
Yes, we're talking about temperature. I understand that photons move from hotter matter to cooler matter, from cooler matter to hotter matter and even, hold on to your seat.....between matter of the SAME temperature.

_You have been boasting that these scientists have said "_*energy moves from same to same*_"._

Yup. At equilibrium, objects are at the same temperature.
*
And you still insist that the ionized corona absorbs photons from the cooler surface.
*
What I said was the cooler surface emits toward and through the hotter matter of the corona.
Do you agree?
I said that did not violate the 2nd Law.
Do you agree?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*question that is supposed to score a "win" for the nonsense statement you made in the first place if adults refuse to play along
*
Is SSDD supposed to be an adult in these threads? LOL!
That's hilarious.

_It states, specifically, that the amount of radiation (P) emitted by a radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant, times its area, times the difference between its own temperature to the 4th power and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power. Unfortunate that you are so lacking in math skills that you can't read even a simple equation like that...but don't worry, you have lots of company here who are equally wanting in basic math skills.
_
Do you think matter has a dimmer switch that allows it to emit faster or slower, depending on its surroundings?
Or is the gain or loss of energy due to the sum of energy in and energy out?
Unless my question is too foolish for you to answer?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you think matter has a dimmer switch that allows it to emit faster or slower, depending on its surroundings?



Seems that you are unable to work your way through the basic math also.  You and the hairball...a match made in Heaven.  Here....let me help you out.  Here is the SB equation one uses when the radiator is not in a vacuum.  






 Lets make the object the same size and give it the same emissivity as in the examples I gave the hairball...but this time, lets leave the temperature of the object the same and alter the temperature of its surroundings.

Example 1:  The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is zero...the object is radiating at 1374.87w/m2

Example 2:  The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 25F.....the object is radiating at  1191.29w/m2

Example 3:  The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 85F...the object is radiating at 825.75w/m2

Example 4: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 218F...the object is radiating at 317.26w/m2

Example 5:  The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 249F...the object is radiating at 244.58w/m2

Example 6:  The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 250F....the object is radiating at 0w/m2

Now if you can show me some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence of net radiation exchange as opposed to gross energy exchange by all means, let me see it because God knows, I have looked.  And a mathematical model, or the say so of someone who also can't provide observed, measured, quantified evidence of net vs gross energy exchange is no better than your own say so.  So good luck.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


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



Here you go hairball...just a few more examples of how stupid you are...and how wrong you have been all along.

HERE, from May of 2016  

_You said:  "And since the *temperature changes only because radiation from a colder object is hitting it*, your attempted evasion there makes no sense, and you're still left with your crap theory getting debunked."

To which I said:  " Idiot....the temperature change resulting from measuring a cooler object is due to the thermopile cooling off at a faster rate...not because energy from the cool object is radiating to the thermopile..._



HERE from December 2016

_You said:   "As is usual with you, that makes zero sense.  *How is the thermopile supposed to change temperature if it doesn't absorb the IR from the cold surfac*e?
You're just one seriously stupid human being."

To which I said:   "You really are stupid aren't you?....when the lens in front of the thermometer focuses on a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off....energy moves from warm to cool and the amount and rate of change of the thermopile is run through a calculation and a temperature is derived..._

_To which you said:   "No, not a chance, given the instantaneous change in the output. Objects simply don't radiate away that quickly. You're just delusional."
_
To which I said:   "How long do you think it takes to for a thermopile to decrease by 5 or 6 hundredths of a degree?...   The stupidity just never stops with you does it...if it is pointing at a warmer object, a thinking person would figure out that the temperature of the thermopile would be increasing....the rate of change from a particular temperature is what the internal computer uses to calculate temperature...not absolute temperature..."

This one isn't from you, but it is a fine example of someone who, like you, thinks he knows it all, but is just as wrong as you have been all along....so you don't have to feel so all alone in your ignorance.

HERE from December 2015
_
FLACALTENN said:   "And *radiation from your freezer IS coming out -- IS focused by lens -- and IS delivered to the photosensors that then measure an electric current *corresponding to the number of IR photons received per unit time.."

To which I said:   "Sorry guy...it isn't... in the case of objects that are warmer, the thermopile warms up and that results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...if the object is cooler, the focus of the lens results in the thermopile cooling down which also results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...the whole thing is operating based on a mathematical formula assigned to a voltage that results from the thermopile warming or cooling...or not changing at all."_

HERE from way back in November 2014:

Not sure which one of the usual gaggle I was talking to

I said:  "point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss.."

And I could go on.  There are plenty of examples...I have been saying the same thing all along while you and yours, and the luke warmers have been claiming exactly the opposite...that the thermopile was measuring incoming cooler radiation from the colder object.

And I don't find it surprising in the least that at long last after you have figured out how wrong you have been that you would try to pretend that you have been right all along and that at long last I have come around to agreeing with you.  You prove once again that you have a complete lack of any sort of character...you are as fundamentally dishonest as a person can get.

If you would like to see more examples of me being right and you being wrong, just ask and I will be happy to bring them forward...although I doubt that you have the character to even respond to this post.  My bet is that you will scurry away and show up on some other thread claiming to have known how such instruments work all along...to which I will have to return to this thread and bring the evidence forward again that you didn't have a clue till you finally realized that I was right and you were wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think matter has a dimmer switch that allows it to emit faster or slower, depending on its surroundings?
> ...



*Example 1: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is zero...the object is radiating at 1374.87w/m2*

Is that what it radiates, or is that its net loss?
You'll claim it has a dimmer switch and emits less if its surroundings are warmer.
You just can't explain how, if the surroundings emit no photons toward the object, how it can know the temperature of those surroundings so it can decide how much to radiate.

Your theory violates causality.

*Example 6:  The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 250F....the object is radiating at 0w/m2
*
_Planck__ (1914, page 40)__[4]__ refers to a condition of __thermodynamic equilibrium__, in which “any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other.”

Radiative equilibrium
_
Max Planck thought bodies in equilibrium exchange equal amounts of heat.
Who discovered this Nobel Prize winner was wrong? It must have caused a lot of excitement.

Unless_ you're the only one_ who figured out that everything known about equilibrium up until a few years ago was wrong?

Are you the only one? Seriously?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that what it radiates, or is that its net loss?



The equation says that it is a gross energy movement...in order for it to be a net movement, some part of the equation has to make a statement about energy gained...that is, what net means...some gain..some loss...net is the amount left over...the equation only describes energy loss...therefore it is a gross energy movement.  This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.  Net is an assumption not supported by the physical law itself or by any observed, measured, quantified physical evidence.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll claim it has a dimmer switch and emits less if its surroundings are warmer.



 I don't make any claim at all...I am simply stating what the physical law says.  You, on the other hand are making claims that are other than what the physical law says.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You just can't explain how, if the surroundings emit no photons toward the object, how it can know the temperature of those surroundings so it can decide how much to radiate.



I don't have to explain...it is simply as statement of a physical law.  Just as if I know the mass of two objects, and the distance they are apart it is possible to accurately and predictably calculate the gravitational pull between the two...Or I can calculate amount of gravitational pull between the earth and an object that I have dropped which would allow me to calculate its rate of acceleration.  These things can be calculated and predicted with fine precision even though we don't know how gravity works...we don't need to know how it works in order to know what it does...and I don't need to know exactly why energy only moves from warm to cool...all I need to know is what the physical law predicts and to know that the physical law always makes accurate predictions...that is how it got to be physical law.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your theory violates causality


 

Take it up with Stefan and Boltzman...and the people who let the SB law remain a physical law.  If there were any actual evidence in existence that the law was incorrect, then the law would be overturned and replaced.  Let me know when that happens.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Max Planck thought bodies in equilibrium exchange equal amounts of heat.Who discovered this Nobel Prize winner was wrong? It must have caused a lot of excitement.



Algore got a nobel prize as well...you aren't going to hold up a nobel prize as evidence that the prize was deserved are you?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unless_ you're the only one_ who figured out that everything known about equilibrium up until a few years ago was wrong?



Again..I am just stating what the physical law says....if you can overturn the law and have it replaced with something more to your liking...all you have to do is prove that it is wrong.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you the only one? Seriously?



No...not at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what it radiates, or is that its net loss?
> ...


*
This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.*

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

* I don't make any claim at all...I am simply stating what the physical law says.* 

The physical law doesn't say that objects at equilibrium stop emitting. That's your confusion.
*
I don't have to explain...it is simply as statement of a physical law.* 

The physical law doesn't say you can violate causality, that objects can transmit their temperature without emitting photons, that's just your confusion.

*If there were any actual evidence in existence that the law was incorrect, then the law would be overturned and replaced.  Let me know when that happens.*

And if you can show that objects above 0K stop emitting, based on their surroundings, you'd post
someone that agreed with you. Or that two objects at equilibrium both stop emitting, you'd post someone that agreed with you. So you let me know when that that happens.

*Algore got a nobel prize as well*

Not for physics you stupid twat.

*Again..I am just stating what the physical law says*

Great, now provide some links of people who agree with your misinterpretation.

Are you the only one? Seriously?

*No...not at all.*

Excellent. Show me.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.*
> 
> Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.



Really?  Tell me what this equation says...describe where you believe it says anything about the radiator gaining energy from its surroundings.








Toddsterpatriot said:


> The physical law doesn't say that objects at equilibrium stop emitting. That's your confusion.



And it doesn't say they don't....Set T and Tc to the same temperature...what does that make P?  That is what the physical law says..and that is all that the law says...anything else is opinion not stated in the physical law.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And if you can show that objects above 0K stop emitting, based on their surroundings, you'd post
> someone that agreed with you. Or that two objects at equilibrium both stop emitting, you'd post someone that agreed with you. So you let me know when that that happens.



I am posting the physical law...what more do I need?  When the law changes, then I will change along with it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great, now provide some links of people who agree with your misinterpretation.



I am not misinterpreting...The eqauation says what I have said that it says...if you think the equation says something else, then say want it says and point out where it says it.  If you have the math skills to even begin...that is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*Really? Tell me what this equation says...describe where you believe it says anything about the radiator gaining energy from its surroundings.*






Yes, that says the net energy loss of the radiator can be calculated by taking into account the energy gained from the surroundings.

*And it doesn't say they don't...*

Great, now you can just show where all those scientists discussing equilibrium were wrong.
Should be easy, it was only Planck and Einstein, among others. Chop chop!!
*
I am posting the physical law...what more do I need?* 

Someone, anyone, that agrees explicitly with your misinterpretation.

*I am not misinterpreting...*

Great, give me a list of links, textbooks, anything that says objects at equilibrium don't emit.
That matter above 0K ever stops emitting.

Because you're the only person I've ever seen make both those claims.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, that says the net energy loss of the radiator can be calculated by taking into account the energy gained from the surroundings.



Does it?  Really?  It is hard to fail to notice that you didn't even attempt to state what the equation actually says...  Again, you use the word net...net has a specific mathematical meaning....and in mathematics, in order to calculate net you must have an expression for income and an expression for outgoing...  Like it or not, that is just the way it is...clearly in the first equation I gave you, there was no expression for income...it was all outgoing.  But just to be sure, lets look at the mathematical expression for the SB law itself.  That is to say the mathematical expression from which all the others are derived.






   Care to show me anywhere in that equation that might be assumed to express incoming energy....from anywhere?

We both know that you can't...and now we both know that you can't even read the equation, much less make comments as to what it says or means...your claim of net is just what you think...or perhaps what you think it should say...or wish it said...or imagine that it says..

What it doesn't say is anything at all about net energy exchange.  Wish all you like...deny all you like but none of it will change what the expression itself says.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great, now you can just show where all those scientists discussing equilibrium were wrong.
> Should be easy, it was only Planck and Einstein, among others. Chop chop!!



So now it is clear that you don't know what equilibrium means either.  Ever bothered to look up the word? 

equilibrium - a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
a stable condition in which forces cancel one another



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Someone, anyone, that agrees explicitly with your misinterpretation.



I am not misinterpreting anything at all...and at this point, it is clear that your complaint is nothing more than that you just don't like what the physical law says...if you had the basic math skills required to read the equation...and I were mistaken...then you would have pointed out where I went wrong.  It is funny for someone who is unable to read an equation and state what it says to claim that someone who can is wrong.  You are no more than a poser who likes to talk but can't demonstrate the skills you pretend to have when put to the question..  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great, give me a list of links, textbooks, anything that says objects at equilibrium don't emit.



Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis:  Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer:   Modest
Radiative Transfer:   Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres:  Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer:  Peraiah



Toddsterpatriot said:


> That matter above 0K ever stops emitting.



Close, but no cigar...matter above 0K in a vacuum never stops emitting according to its size, emissivity, and its temperature.  That is what the equation above means.  I even took the time to email the question to a group of top shelf physicists when I was having this discussion with Ian...they unanimously agreed that the first expression of the SB equation (above) describes an object radiating in a vacuum...the second expression, in the above post describes an object not in a vacuum.  So the SB law says that an object in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity and its temperature...an object not in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature an the temperature of its surroundings.   The physical law says nothing about net as there is no expression describing incoming radiation....unless of course you care to show me that expression in the equations.

Net is a product of post modern science which places more value on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models than it does on observation and measurement....which is why you find that you can provide no actual observation, or measurement of net energy flow.  It only exists in mathematical models.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that says the net energy loss of the radiator can be calculated by taking into account the energy gained from the surroundings.
> ...



*Does it? Really?*

Until you show proof that the cooler object stops emitting, yes, really.




*Care to show me anywhere in that equation that might be assumed to express incoming energy....from anywhere?*

You have to add the result of the identical equation for the cooler object.
Because the cooler object emits, as long as it's above 0K, despite your confusion.

Just as the Sun's surface emits, even though the corona is much hotter.

*So now it is clear that you don't know what equilibrium means either.* 

Using your definition, how is Planck or Einstein wrong?

*equilibrium - a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
a stable condition in which forces cancel one another
*
Thanks. Lessons always work best when you disprove your own claim. DERP.

In this case, the equal, opposing forces is the radiation from each object.
*
Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis:  Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer:   Modest
Radiative Transfer:   Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres:  Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer:  Peraiah
*
Thanks. So where is the passage where they said objects at equilibrium don't emit?

*Close, but no cigar...matter above 0K in a vacuum never stops emitting according to its size, emissivity, and its temperature.  That is what the equation above means.* 

You just have to prove that at a certain size, emissivity, or temperature (above 0K) it stops emitting.

*an object not in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature an the temperature of its surroundings.* 

How does the object know the temperature of its surroundings, so it can use that dimmer switch to adjust its emissions? Does it guess? Telepathy maybe?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Does it? Really?*
> 
> Until you show proof that the cooler object stops emitting, yes, really.



The physical law says that if the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings are the same, then P=0...since you are claiming that something else happens, the onus is on you to provide some proof that they continue to radiate.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have to add the result of the identical equation for the cooler object.



So you have to leave the physical law and do something that it doesn't prescribe...in short, you have to make it up...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Using your definition, how is Planck or Einstein wrong?



Not my definition.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks. Lessons always work best when you disprove your own claim. DERP.



And even when given a definition, you still miss the boat...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks. So where is the passage where they said objects at equilibrium don't emit?



Says so right there in the equation...I am afraid that explanations of physics and physical laws don't come in pre school editions...they assume that you at least can read a simple mathematical equation...you can't...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You just have to prove that at a certain size, emissivity, or temperature (above 0K) it stops emitting.



The SB law says that they stop emitting...since you are stating something other than what the physical law says...the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary...and I can't help but notice that after all this time, you have yet to provide even the first observation, or measurement supporting what you believe.  That should clue you in.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does the object know the temperature of its surroundings, so it can use that dimmer switch to adjust its emissions? Does it guess? Telepathy maybe?



Why do you assume that in order to obey the laws of physics that objects must be sentient?  Do you think that everything that obeys laws of physics somehow knows how it must act?  Do chemicals somehow know which other chemicals they can react with?..and on and on...Strange that you would accept that everything in nature obeys the laws of physics unthinkingly except for radiators and radiation and somehow they are free agents, not subject to any law and therefore get to decide what they will or won't do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Does it? Really?*
> ...



*The physical law says that if the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings are the same, then P=0...*

Yes, net radiated power is zero.

*So you have to leave the physical law and do something that it doesn't prescribe...*

The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.

*Not my definition.*

Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.


*And even when given a definition, you still miss the boat...*

The definition you provided refuted your claim. Still funny.

*Says so right there in the equation...*

We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!

*The SB law says that they stop emitting...*

Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
Should be easy....if you're right.

*Why do you assume that in order to obey the laws of physics that objects must be sentient?* 

Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?

To sum up, your confusion is in the meaning of P.
You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That dimmer switch  is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.
Now for the nth time about this energy transfer using the StB equation to make a case for back radiation.
Which is according to you represented by the Wikipedia image you copied and pasted:





And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said  the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.
Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?
All of area A can only be assigned to the body that is totally surrounded by a spherical absorber only then does it get all the P from (hotter)T. Only then, (when it`s a sphere) does the distance between the 2 not have to be specified.
Do you see a provision for the distance in that equation, if so then you are hallucinating.
So since no distance is specified that means the (colder)T is a sphere and in that case only *1/2 *of (colder) T is radiating at the hotter body. Unless you have stupid photons that behave the way you think they do.
If you wanted all of the (colder)T radiation the way you abuse that equation then the colder body would have to be inside the sphere of the hotter one. Unless you can come up with a spacial orientation that allows for both of them to be at 2 different places at the same time then you are clueless what the StB equation is all about.
Just as clueless as what Einstein`s equation E=mc^2 is all about...according to you it`s the same as E=1/2mv^2
I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument because you can`t figure out  why an (ionized) plasma won`t absorb all the photons emitted by the cooler surface of the sun


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


*
That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.*

How else do you explain SSDD's theory?

*And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.*

The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.

*Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?*

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

*I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument*

It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.
Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.*
> 
> How else do you explain SSDD's theory?



Again...not my theory...simply what the physical law says...I accept it literally..it is you who doesn't...it is you who is in opposition to the physical law...it is you who needs to show some observed, measured, quantified evidence that it is in error...simply claiming that I am misinterpreting implies that there is actual observed, and measured evidence out there that proves I am misinterpreting...lets see it.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.



Close again...The temperature of the colder object(s) applies in any two objects...or any number of objects...it says so right there in the equation...the radiation emitted by the warmer object is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings.  That is what the law says...the only mention of emission in the physical law is the emission of the warmer object...anything else is your opinion and not stated in the physical law.  It isn't which is why you have no actual evidence with which to slap me down...you just have schoolboy misunderstandings, wishes, and juvenile one liners...and that's all.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.



I can't help but notice that you still haven't shown me where specifically I have misinterpreted the equations associated with the physical law...I have shown you the equation showing the behavior of the object in a vacuum and the equation that is to be used when the object is not in a vacuum and in the presence of other matter...you claim that I have misinterpreted but haven't shown me anywhere in the equation where I am wrong...nor have you shown me any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.   



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?



Can you show a measured instance of radiation in so called greenhouse gas frequencies from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface not made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere?...which isn't actually a measurement of energy moving from cool to warm...it is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument right next to the cooled one and you won't measure any radiation from the cooler atmosphere at all.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, net radiated power is zero.



Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net?  If net was the issue, don't you think it would be included in the physical law, and the equations associated with it?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.



Of course it does...there is an expression for the cooler object..it is Tc^4.  And right there in the equation it describes explicitly what effect the cooler object has on the warmer...it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says...  If there were more, then the equation would say that there is more.  Anything beyond the equation describing the physical law is not part of the physical law.  It is fiction.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.



The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....opposing forces have canceled each other out.  You ASSUME that equilibrium means that each is absorbing the same amount of radiation...that isn't what the equation says because there is no expression in the equation from which you can derive net.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!



You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...can you show me some observed, measured evidence that they are emitting and absorbing the same amount of energy to and from each other?  Can you show me anything at all other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model upon which your position is based?  Any physical evidence at all?...Because the SB law as I have presented it can accurately predict the temperature and amount of energy emitted by a radiator under practically any condition.  You can claim net all you like, but it isn't described in the law...and there isn't the first observation or measurement supporting the claim, while every observation and every measurement ever made supports mine.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
> Should be easy....if you're right.



It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .  The physical law is a real source...in fact, it is the prime source.  It says what it says and any addition to or subtraction from it is meaningless.  Now maybe you might like to show a credible source which says that it is OK to alter or change a physical law in an effort to make it support your beliefs.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?



I don't.  I am simply stating what the physical law says.  I don't have to try and imagine how or why...trying to imagine such a thing is a pointless exercise.  I accept that the physical law accurately and predicts the temperature and amount of radiation an object emits every time...with no mathematical expression from which net can be derived included.  You are the one questioning the physical law...therefore you are the one who must show that it is in error and should be reconfigured to include an expression from which net can be derived...got any observed, measured example of net energy flow between two objects?  Of course you don't or you would have provided it long ago. What you have..and all that you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.



This is interesting to me....how do you suppose it actually means net power when there is no expression in the mathematical description of the physical law from which net can be derived?  Do you think that the work that goes into formulating a physical law is so lax and slipshod that it would require you to assume anything?  If it means net, why doesn't it say net?..why is there no mathematical expression in it from which net could be derived?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That "dimmer switch" is your stupid idea and you are the only one that keeps talking about it, just like your coronal plasma that is supposed to absorb light that goes right through it and you will never understand why.
No matter how often it`s explained to you.
As for the StB law and the other question (which is how you always "answer") "I am not sure what you are trying to say here"....when in reality you are more than not sure what Boltzmann was stating, in fact you have no clue whatsoever.
According to you he states that you can solve for temperature by adding the power flux from A and B when they are at the same temperature, which then is supposed to solve for a higher temperature than the hotter one of the 2 bodies...or both if they are both at the same temperature.
In no way did Boltzmann or anyone else but "warmers" say so.
If A and B are at the same temperature then according to you there is a cross section between A and B that has a higher power flux and must therefore have a higher temperature because of your little photon bullets that have to be accounted for with your naive photon physics...and failing that the same naive photon physics you phantasize implies a "dimmer switch".
If there were a hotter than emitter cross section and if this were the result of the sum of 2 power fluxes then it should be no problem to detect that with a FLIR. Unfortunately for you no such twice the power flux zone between 2 bodies of equal temperature can be detected, else nobody would ever design heat sinks that look like this:




Anyone who understands that photons are not simple particles as in your phantasy world has no problem understanding why there is no "dimmer switch" needed to avoid a problem that does not even exist.
In your naive world wave interference has to be the result of a "dimmer switch"


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2017)

It never ceases to amaze me that these people seem to believe that everything in the universe just naturally obeys the laws of physics...except for radiation...it must somehow know what it must do in order to obey those same laws...dimmer switches, smart photons (assuming photons even exist) etc.  It boggles the mind.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2017)

So SSDD, in all that mess, did you come up with an explanation as to why you think every molecule contains a dimmer switch, controlled by some unknown intelligence that transmits info across the universe at faster than light speeds?

No? You just used more and more words to deny that's what your theory is?

Imagine that.

Have you thought of writing up a paper concerning your magical intelligent matter with a dimmer switch built in? You'll set the scientific world on fire. If your dimmer switch theory is correct, there's no way they can't give you a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.*
> ...



*Again...not my theory...simply what the physical law says...*

The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.
*
the radiation emitted by the warmer object is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings*

Net energy emitted, not energy emitted.
If an object emitted slower, based on surroundings, it would have to measure the surroundings, which is impossible, if the cooler surroundings don't emit.
*
I can't help but notice that you still haven't shown me where specifically I have misinterpreted the equations associated with the physical law...*

Your misinterpretation is your "matter above 0K stops emitting if warmer matter is near".
You still can't explain the conflict between that claim and the fact that the cooler surface of the Sun still emits even though surrounded by the hotter corona.

If your claim were true, the Sun's surface would be dark.
*
which isn't actually a measurement of energy moving from cool to warm...it is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...*

Here is another of your errors. You feel that if energy can't be detected, it isn't being emitted.
And that the atmosphere, only emitting upward, can suddenly emit downward, if an instrument is cooled.
The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, net radiated power is zero.
> ...



*Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net?*

When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
No dimmer switch in nature.
*
it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says..*

You don't even know that (P) means net energy emitted.

*The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....*

They didn't say nothing is happening. They didn't say neither emitted.

_Planck__ (1914, page 40)__[4]__ refers to a condition of __thermodynamic equilibrium__, in which “any two bodies or elements of *bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other.”*

Radiative equilibrium_

See, Planck says bodies at equilibrium radiate equal amounts of heat at each other.

*You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...
*
Not my claim, Planck's
Now you claimed your textbooks showed matter at equilibrium stops emitting.
So cut and paste the passages that prove you weren't lying.

*It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .*

P= net energy radiated.
In this example, they radiate the same amount, so net is zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


*That "dimmer switch" is your stupid idea*

The dimmer switch is SSDD's moronic idea.
How else do you explain at object emitting at 300 K
suddenly cutting its emissions by 50% when an identical object at 252.27 K is placed nearby?

You avoided my question.
Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?
*
just like your coronal plasma that is supposed to absorb light that goes right through it*

The hot corona isn't supposed to absorb light from the Sun, according to SSDD, it prevents the Sun's surface from emitting.

_"Can you show a measured instance of radiation in so called greenhouse gas frequencies from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface"

^_
He thinks radiation from the cooler atmosphere can't move toward the surface.
Is he correct? If he is, why can radiation from the cooler surface move toward the warmer corona?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.



No...that is just your wack job interpretation of the natural law...Tell me, do you also think that chemicals must decide if, and how, and how much to react with other chemicals?...Do you think that they must check with the other chemical to determine how much of it there is so that they know how long to react as well?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Net energy emitted, not energy emitted.



Again...your interpretation...that isn't what the SB law says because there is no expression which would allow you to calculate net anything.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If an object emitted slower, based on surroundings, it would have to measure the surroundings, which is impossible, if the cooler surroundings don't emit.



Again..your interpretation...Personally, I don't interpret anything...I am patient and don't mind waiting till science discovers the underlying mechanism.  I am satisfied that the physical law is always right...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your misinterpretation is your "matter above 0K stops emitting if warmer matter is near".



No...that is your interpretation...My argument is a literal statement of the SB law...there is no expression in the law for calculating net...You think that net should be there so you simply include it as if it were there...it isn't.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still can't explain the conflict between that claim and the fact that the cooler surface of the Sun still emits even though surrounded by the hotter corona.



All been explained multiple times...sorry you aren't smart enough to grasp the explanation..just goes to show that kids shouldn't ask adult questions...they simply aren't prepared to understand the answers.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If your claim were true, the Sun's surface would be dark.



Again..your interpretation.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here is another of your errors. You feel that if energy can't be detected, it isn't being emitted.
> And that the atmosphere, only emitting upward, can suddenly emit downward, if an instrument is cooled.



Energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool..why would it not?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.



I don't need to explain the physical law...I only need to know that it is correct...it states that energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool...It doesn't specify direction, or any such thing...it simply states that it happens...I accept that and don't need to interpret it in such a way that makes a claim that the law itself doesn't...but then my position is based on what the physical laws actually say and not some wacko interpretation of them.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
> No dimmer switch in nature.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.
> ...



*Again...your interpretation...that isn't what the SB law says because there is no expression which would allow you to calculate net anything.*

You still haven't shown a single source that says matter stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Why not?

Tell you what, for every source you find that says that, I'll provide 2 that say P means net energy radiated.

*All been explained multiple times...*

Your "explanation" involved why the corona was hot, not why the cool surface still radiates.

*Energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool..why would it not?*

Energy also moves spontaneously from cool to warm.....why don't you explain your theory that upward suddenly emits downward, just because an instrument is cooled?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
> ...



_[4]__ refers to a condition of __thermodynamic equilibrium__, in which “any two bodies or elements of *bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other.”*_



* So what?*

You said equilibrium means nothing happens. Planck says it means they both radiate.
Who first discovered Planck was wrong? Was it you?

*Again..your interpretation which is at odds with the actual equation the physical law specifies.*

Again..your interpretation is at odds with the Einstein, Planck and others. Why are you right and they're wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.
> ...



The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.

*I don't need to explain the physical law...*

You don't need to explain the law, but when your interpretation violates causality, you need to explain how that violation is possible.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2017)

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.






SSDD pretends that the S-B law has a second term. It doesn't. He made that up. He started by assuming backradiation doesn't exist, and worked backwards from that kook assumption to create a fictional version of the S-B Law. The two-term equation SSDD always quotes is not the S-B Law, it's an equilibrium equation derived from the S-B Law.

The S-B Law, that one term, says the only thing controlling the radiation of matter is its own temperature and emissivity. There's jack in the S-B Law about the temperature of nearby matter. Nearby matter means nothing. Matter emits according to its own temperature, period.

This isn't a discussion. The DimmerSwitchAndIntelligentPhotons theory of SSDD and pals is among the dumbest pseudophysics ever invented. At this point, SSDD and pals are only useful as an illustration of how fanatical cult devotion causes people to believe very stupid things.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You just don`t get it.




The photobucket gif you made yourself is the kind of nonsense no respectable physicist would ever formulate.
Because there is no need to stipulate that zero power is transferred from either of the 255 K body to the other.
If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a  255 K radiator. It does not and your inability to understand wave functions is your problem.
It also does not mean that either one of the 255 K bodies has to stop radiating so that the cross section is not twice the power flux of each....as your photobucket gif would have to be changed to a + sign in the brackets to express the power flux for the cross section.
In essence you keep saying that a-a is not 0, it`s 255^4 - 255^4 and if P= 0 and a is not zero unless a+a=0
which then with your particle only photons means that a non zero a stopped radiating.
While in reality the cross section between 2 equal radiators is no more than the power flux of just one of the 2:




Net effect is that wave interference cancels out as much as it adds as long as both bodies emit the same spectrum. Which is not the case ( Wien`s displacement law) if one of the 2 bodies is hotter than the other one then the portion of the spectrum which is not the same as the cooler one transfers that portion exactly as per the StB equation.
In your kindergarten em phantasy world heterodyne frequency mixing would not be possible nor could we cool a material with photons, but we can


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


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


*
The photobucket gif you made yourself is the kind of nonsense no respectable physicist would ever formulate.
Because there is no need to stipulate that zero power is transferred from either of the 255 K body to the other.*

Both bodies emit the same amount of energy.
SSDD thinks neither emits anything.

So which is it?

*If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a 255 K radiator.*

A vacuum between the 2 has a power flux? Cool! So what?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


> If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a  255 K radiator. It does not and your inability to understand wave functions is your problem.



"Wave functions" has zilch to do with the topic. It's just a term you're throwing about that you have no understanding of. If you did understand it, you'd know it has nothing to do with the topic.



> While in reality the cross section between 2 equal radiators is no more than the power flux of just one of the 2:



Power flux is also a term you don't understand. Flux is a vector quantity. It's quite possible for the flux between the two to be near zero, but twice the total energy is still traveling.

Now, power density, that would be doubled.



> Net effect is that wave interference cancels out



Say what? God no, wave interference doesn't work that way. Matter isn't spitting out coherent light, so there is no wave interference.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Power flux is also a term you don't understand. Flux is a vector quantity. It's quite possible for the flux between the two to be near zero, but twice the total energy is still traveling.



Clearly it is you who doesn't understand...in electromagnetism...ie. radiating energy, flux is a scalar quantity.




> Net effect is that wave interference cancels out





mamooth said:


> Say what? God no, wave interference doesn't work that way.



Tell that to engineers who install microwave dishes, cell towers, radio towers, etc and they will laugh in your stupid face.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.



Clearly you are just plain stupid...



mamooth said:


> SSDD pretends that the S-B law has a second term. It doesn't. He made that up.



The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...Thanks for thinking I am smart enough to have derived the equation one uses when the object is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum...but alas, I didn't .



mamooth said:


> The S-B Law, that one term, says the only thing controlling the radiation of matter is its own temperature and emissivity. There's jack in the S-B Law about the temperature of nearby matter. Nearby matter means nothing. Matter emits according to its own temperature, period.



Poor idiot...the equation above describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...if that were all, then the SB law couldn't be applied to anything but a perfect black body (doesn't exist) in a perfect vacuum.  Apparently this is all so far over your head that you have no hope of ever catching up.

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes  and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?






I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.







Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation. 

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas. 

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

So you believe what you want hairball...but the fact is that you are wrong...always have been wrong and very likely will always be wrong...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.
> ...


*
By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe.*

Next time, ask them something useful.

Ask them if an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby.
Be sure to post their answers.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...



No, shit-for-brains, it describes any body radiating, period.

You poor loser. Your fraud goes nowhere if we simply point at it and laugh. You can't do a thing except pout and scream now. Your tears of impotent rage are like a sweet nectar.



> So you believe what you want hairball...but the fact is that you are wrong...always have been wrong and very likely will always be wrong...



The scientists didn't say a thing that agreed with your kook fantasy physcis. You're just pushing an even bigger fraud now.

Why not just admit you were a complete 'effin moron at the start, and kept digging deeper and deeper into the stupid hole because you were too stubborn to admit to your initial error? That's got to be better than showing everyone what an open fraud you are.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...
> ...



Sorry hairball..it doesn't...and I bothered to ask some top shelf physicists about it for ian's benefit.  I had no doubt, but like you, he operates on a belief system rather than any actual research into the topic.



mamooth said:


> You poor loser. Your fraud goes nowhere if we simply point at it and laugh. You can't do a thing except pout and scream now. Your tears of impotent rage are like a sweet nectar.



Projecting your failures at others is not going to alter how wrong you are.



mamooth said:


> The scientists didn't say a thing that agreed with your kook fantasy physcis. You're just pushing an even bigger fraud now.



Of course they did...in fact, they said exactly what I predicted they would say.  To bad you suffer from such a profound reading comprehension deficit.



mamooth said:


> Why not just admit you were a complete 'effin moron at the start, and kept digging deeper and deeper into the stupid hole because you were too stubborn to admit to your initial error? That's got to be better than showing everyone what an open fraud you are.



Again...projecting isn't really helping your position.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe.*
> 
> Next time, ask them something useful.
> ...



No need to ask such a stupid question...the answer is stated right there in the equation for anyone who can read a simple equation.  All I needed to do was show ian that his believe that objects radiate according to their own temperature was wrong...and I did that.

This must be very frustrating for you...to believe in something so fervently...especially a thing associated with science and not have the first piece of actual evidence in support of your belief...to be restricted to only pointing out people who believe in the same unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model as you.

It is people like you who have forgone empirical science in favor of such untestable models that have made the whole AGW scam possible....people who believe in models over reality and believe that those models represent reality have gone off the deep end.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball..it doesn't...and I bothered to ask some top shelf physicists about it for ian's benefit.



And then you lied and pretended they supported your kook claims, even though we all see they didn't.

Try to understand your place in the universe, which is as a whiny fraud on the internet who provides some unintentional comic relief for the normal people. I mean, seriously, a raving imbecile like you, still pretending he's overthrown all knows physics. The unbridled narcissism, the raging Dunning-Kruger, the pathological obsessive diseased personality, it's all hilarious.

On the bright side, at least you do serve some kind of useful purpose. We all must be good for something, and you're good for amusement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*No need to ask such a stupid question...the answer is stated right there in the equation for anyone who can read a simple equation.*

All you need to do is post something that agrees with,
"Matter above 0K stops emitting when near warmer matter".
But you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't.

I can post plenty of sources that say P is net energy radiated, you can't post a single one that says it is one way.

I can post plenty of sources that say objects at equilibrium radiate equally at each other, you can't post a single one that says neither radiates.

I can explain why the Sun's surface radiates toward the hotter corona, without contradicting anything I've ever claimed here. You can't without contradicting your "no back radiation" idiocy.

Your comprehensive failure is very obvious.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball..it doesn't...and I bothered to ask some top shelf physicists about it for ian's benefit.
> ...



Like I said...you are to stupid to read and comprehend...

Referring to the first equation..the equation you posted...

Dr. Mellott says:  "
" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


Dr Poisson says:  
" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!

The second formula being the one where T is subtracted from Tc

The first one being  the same formula you posted...

Sorry hairball...but once again..you are dead wrong...why is that not surprising?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All you need to do is post something that agrees with,
> "Matter above 0K stops emitting when near warmer matter".
> But you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't.



Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal...the physical law agrees with me...I don't need anything else...in order to prove your point, you are going to show a mathematical expression in the equation associated with the physical law that would allow you to derive net rather than simply assume net.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I can post plenty of sources that say P is net energy radiated, you can't post a single one that says it is one way.



Like I said...all you  can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality...you can't post the first bit of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim that the model is correct.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I can post plenty of sources that say objects at equilibrium radiate equally at each other, you can't post a single one that says neither radiates.



Like I said...all you  can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality...you can't post the first bit of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim that the model is correct.

Sorry guy...it must be terribly frustrating for you...but such is life when you try to replace what a physical law says with what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > All you need to do is post something that agrees with,
> ...


*
Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal*

P, net energy emitted, equals zero.
Planck and Einstein said at equilibrium, identical energy is emitted by both.
They disagree with your confusion, Show where their position was refuted.

P.S. your confused, solo claim, is not a refutation.

*Like I said...all you  can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable*

As I said, I can post plenty of sources that say P is net, you can't post any that say it is one way.
*
Like I said...all you  can post is opinions from people who, like you believe....*

Right, I can only post Einstein, Planck, etc,  while you post nothing.

*Sorry guy...it must be terribly frustrating for you...*

Your idiocy isn't frustrating, it's amusing. And obvious. And comprehensive.

Let me know when you can explain the Sun's radiation.
Or one way only radiation.
Or zero radiation at equilibrium.

Your failure to date is very noticeable.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal*
> 
> P, net energy emitted, equals zero.



Deriving net from a formula that doesn't have an expression that would allow net...you are growing very tiring...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Planck and Einstein said at equilibrium, identical energy is emitted by both.
> They disagree with your confusion, Show where their position was refuted.



So they disagree...If they were here, I would ask them if they have any physical, observed, measured evidence of net energy flow..and do you know what they would say?  No...they don't because none exists...They would have to agree that their position was based on unobservable, unmeasurable untestable mathematical models...Personally, I choose reality.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> As I said, I can post plenty of sources that say P is net, you can't post any that say it is one way.



Yep..you can post plenty of sources that "say"...but not a single one with any physical evidence



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right, I can only post Einstein, Planck, etc,  while you post nothing.



Yep...sources that "say"...at least Einstein would have the intellectual honesty to admit that he was dealing with a mathematical model.

Einstein on mathematical models:   As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

You seem very certain...Einstein wasn't.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your idiocy isn't frustrating, it's amusing. And obvious. And comprehensive.



I am not the one who is unable to make my point...I am just repeating the physical law...You are the one who is trying unsuccessfully to make the law say something it doesn't...You are the one who can only point to people who you claim were as certain as you..but if you look into what they actually had to say, they realized that the were dealing in theory and hypothesis...not fact...they remain theory and hypothesis...I hold the position of physical law over your position of theory...you can't win.

Let me know when you get some observed, measured evidence to support your claim...and go visit a psychic and channel Einstein so you can as if it is reasonable to be as certain as you are about particles which remain only theoretical at this point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*Deriving net from a formula that doesn't have an expression that would allow net...you are growing very tiring...*

*Heat Radiation *
_Thermal radiation is __energy transfer__ by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary __temperatures__ (less than __red hot__"), the radiation is in the __infrared__ region of the __electromagnetic spectrum__. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the __Stefan-Boltzmann law__: _

_



__Calculation_ 
_



_
_While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object._

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Weird, they say P = net radiated power. Still waiting for your source that backs up your one way radiation.
And one that backs up your zero radiation at equilibrium.

Come on......provide a source already.


*So they disagree...If they were here, I would ask them if they have any physical, observed, measured evidence of net energy flow..and do you know what they would say?* 

They would say, "Stop bothering us, you silly moron"

*Yep..you can post plenty of sources that "say"...but not a single one with any physical evidence*

I get it, your non-existent sources are correct, while my real ones are wrong.
Do the voices in your head all agree with your claims, or is there disagreement?

*You seem very certain...Einstein wasn't.* 

I'm certain that when Einstein and Planck are on one side and you're the only one on the other side, you're wrong.

*I am not the one who is unable to make my point...I am just repeating the physical law...*

You are unable to show that your unique interpretation of the physical law has a basis in reality.

*Let me know when you get some observed, measured evidence to support your claim...*

Right back at you. Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.

Between that and your proof that Einstein and Planck are wrong, the Nobel is yours.
Come on, do it, then you'll be able to refute Michael Mann from a position of authority.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Heat Radiation *
> _Thermal radiation is __energy transfer__ by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary __temperatures__ (less than __red hot__"), the radiation is in the __infrared__ region of the __electromagnetic spectrum__. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the __Stefan-Boltzmann law__: _
> 
> _
> ...



You provided my source above...where is the expession in that equation that would allow you to derive net?  Wishing it was an equation that derived net doesn't make it so...providing references from people who also assume that it means net also doesn't make it so...that equation says that the amount of radiation (P) coming from the radiator is equal to its emissivity X the SB constant X it area X (the difference between the temperatures of the object and its surroundings)...and that is all it says.  There is nothing  mentioning any amount of energy received from the cooler surroundings...assuming net is just that...an assumption.  The physical law says what it says.  Let me know when it is changed to reflect net...till then, you, and all your references are assuming net based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica model that the physical law doesn't reference.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> They would say, "Stop bothering us, you silly moron"



Actually, they would answer the question much as all the other top shelf physicists that I have asked radiation questions of...people of faith are the ones who get testy, and resort to name calling and appeals to authority when their dogma is questioned...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I get it, your non-existent sources are correct, while my real ones are wrong.
> Do the voices in your head all agree with your claims, or is there disagreement?



My only source is the physical law itself...I need no other.  The fact that you can't reference the physical law as it is written and make your argument based on what it says should clue you in..but it doesn't...there is no expression there that would allow you to derive net...and I see no post script that says it is OK to assume net.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm certain that when Einstein and Planck are on one side and you're the only one on the other side, you're wrong.



Again..you are operating from a position of belief...Einstein never lost sight of the fact that he was positing theory...you seem to be under the impression that QM is engraved in stone and has all been proven and is stated as physical law...it isn't, nor will it ever be in its present form.  You are a believer..you have no physical evidence in support of your position while the SB law as I am stating it will accurately predict the amount of radiation an object is radiating till the cows come home....dead on every time.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You are unable to show that your unique interpretation of the physical law has a basis in reality.



Of course I can...that is how it got to be a physical law instead of a theory...it accurately predicts temperature, emissivity, amount of radiation, or the temperature of its surroundings every time...spot on.  Why else do you think it achieved the status of physical law?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right back at you. Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.



All been explained..you have even been provided with articles on the subject...maybe you can't read at that level, maybe you can't see the words through your blinders, maybe you, like all believers deny whatever questions you belief...who knows but you...the fact that you didn't like the explanation you were given is not my concern.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Between that and your proof that Einstein and Planck are wrong, the Nobel is yours.



The credit goes to S-B...I am just stating what their equations say.  But thanks anyway.  And at this point, the work of Einstein and Planck remains theory...the work of SB is physical law...you seem to have a disconnect there in your understanding of the difference.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Come on, do it, then you'll be able to refute Michael Mann from a position of authority.



One does not even need authority to refute michael man...but it is interesting to note that you apparently have such respect for him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Heat Radiation *
> ...



*
You provided my source above...where is the expession in that equation that would allow you to derive net?*

When you take energy emitted minus energy absorbed, you get net.
As my source shows, P = net radiated power.

Have you provided a single source that says P = one way power radiated?
It seems like you've been asked for years to provide such a source.
You gave a list of textbooks you said agreed with your claim, but you haven't posted the excerpts that agree.
Is it because you lied? Inquiring minds want to know.
*
Wishing it was an equation that derived net doesn't make it so...providing references from people who also assume that it means net also doesn't make it so...*

If my sources don't make it so, your complete absence of sources REALLY doesn't make it so.
*
My only source is the physical law itself...I need no other.* 

You're the only one confused about the physical law.

*Again..you are operating from a position of belief...*

Absolutely. I'm on one side with Planck, Einstein, Wilhelm Wien, Max J. Riedl, Gustav Robert Kirchhoff and Roy Spencer. I believe you're by yourself on the other side.

That must be why you can provide no source that agrees with your misinterpretation of the physical law.

*Einstein never lost sight of the fact that he was positing theory...*

Yup. Einstein positing theory versus you positing theory.

Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.
*
All been explained..you have even been provided with articles on the subject...*

You have provided no article that explains the contradiction between your misinterpretation and the actual radiation we see from the Sun's surface toward the hotter corona.

Your failure to do so is glaring.
Even more so than your failure to explain the ability of CMB to travel thru our much warmer atmosphere.
*
The credit goes to S-B...I am just stating what their equations say.*

If your unique misinterpretation were true, your publication would overturn hundreds of years of physics.
So publish. But first, send a couple of those emails asking physicists if matter stops radiating when near warmer matter.

*...but it is interesting to note that you apparently have such respect for him.*

He's a lying hack. So please, publish, collect your Nobel and then show him back radiation doesn't exist. LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When you take energy emitted minus energy absorbed, you get net..



And do tell...in the equation you provided, where is the expression for energy absorbed by the radiator.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Have you provided a single source that says P = one way power radiated?



Just the physical law itself..the formula describes a one way energy movement.  there is no expression there describing energy absorbed by the surroundings.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> It seems like you've been asked for years to provide such a source.



The physical law itself is the prime source.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You gave a list of textbooks you said agreed with your claim, but you haven't posted the excerpts that agree.


Go read them...clearly it can only help you.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If my sources don't make it so, your complete absence of sources REALLY doesn't make it so.



My source is the physical law itself...I don't need any other.  So long as there is no expression there from which you can derive net...My position remains unchallenged...let me know when the law is changed and the associated equations are changed.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're the only one confused about the physical law.



Sorry...but you are the one who keeps claiming net and can't seem to show any expression in the equation describing energy absorbed by the radiator...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Absolutely. I'm on one side with Planck, Einstein, Wilhelm Wien, Max J. Riedl, Gustav Robert Kirchhoff and Roy Spencer. I believe you're by yourself on the other side.



And still the physical law supports me.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup. Einstein positing theory versus you positing theory.



Nope..I am just stating the physical law...no theory involved...and yo don't seem to be able to point to any error I have made in stating what the equations say...you just don't like what they say.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If your unique misinterpretation were true, your publication would overturn hundreds of years of physics.



Those who are adherents to post modern science that believes models over reality don't care, and those who don't wouldn't be surprised in the least...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So publish. But first, send a couple of those emails asking physicists if matter stops radiating when near warmer matter.



Publish what?  A physical law....sorry, it's already been published and thus far, it hasn't been overturned.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's a lying hack. So please, publish, collect your Nobel and then show him back radiation doesn't exist. LOL!



Again, the publishing and the testing and the testing and the testing has already been done...and it is now a physical law...there is nothing to publish....

Tell you what...this has all grown terribly boring as do all attempts at conversation with you do...so either you point out the specific expression in the equation you provided from which you can derive net...and the expression that describes the amount of energy the radiator is absorbing from its surroundings or it is back on ignore for you...going on and on with you not being able to do more than refer me to people who believe the same thing as you when the physical law says something different is pointless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When you take energy emitted minus energy absorbed, you get net..
> ...



*
And do tell...in the equation you provided, where is the expression for energy absorbed by the radiator.*




Calculation





P is clearly defined as net.
Feel free to provide a similar source that backs up your misinterpretation.

Or not.
Your failure to date is very clear.

*Just the physical law itself..the formula describes a one way energy movement*

That's your interpretation. Is it lonely being the only person with that viewpoint?

*The physical law itself is the prime source.*

Yes, we've all noticed your lack of any backup from anyone, anywhere.
I can provide many other sources that say net, you provide none that say one way.
Except your lone misinterpretation, of course.
*
My source is the physical law itself...I don't need any other.*

Which is convenient since there are no other. LOL!

*Those who are adherents to post modern science that believes models over reality don't care*

Reality, the Sun, for instance, is also against your solo misinterpretation.

*Publish what?  A physical law....sorry, it's already been published and thus far, it hasn't been overturned.*

Publish your claim that Einstein, Planck et al are wrong and that you're the only one who has noticed.
Unless you can provide proof that others noticed their errors concerning equilibrium.

Of course you have no sources for that either. Because it's just you. All alone. All wrong.

*Again, the publishing and the testing and the testing and the testing has already been done...and it is now a physical law...there is nothing to publish....*

It was a law before Einstein and Planck yet you're the only one who said they were wrong about the law.
You...all alone...versus Einstein and Planck. Pretty cool! Pretty funny.
*
Tell you what...this has all grown terribly boring*

I agree. Your failure to explain why the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona is boring.
Your claim that your misinterpretation disproves Einstein and Planck is boring.
Your complete failure to provide a single reputable source that backs your claim is boring.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.
> ...




The first S-B equation is for a single object, with no interaction with outside influences.

Power = emmisivity x constant x Area x T^4

Every object radiates according to its temperature (to the fourth power), all the time.

If you add a second object then the complexities escalate dramatically. It is then P1 - P2 = Pnet

We have to compute the power of each object individually. Why? Because the emissivity is different for each object.

The next problem is Area. Does one object enclose the other? Or are they discreet objects embedded in an environment which could in fact be considered a third object. Two spheres radiating at each other have varying amounts of radiation going towards the other depending on distance and angle, even though both are still emitting P = A x e x k x T^4. The net power being exchanged between them is dependent on angle, distance, and the line-of-sight area between them.

The traditional writing of the second S-B law as P=Aek(T^4-Tc^4) is ultra simplified to emphasize the basic underlying factors. There is much more to the actual calculations.

But SSDD won't even accept that individual components of the energy transfers must be tallied up and a net value found.


----------



## IanC (Apr 25, 2017)

No comment from SSDD on the topological or emissivity complexities involved with using the S-B laws?

Even his use of the term 'vacuum' is faulty. A vacuum may have any quantity of radiation moving through it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2017)

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.  Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence.  Let me know when you get some evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.  Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence.  Let me know when you get some evidence.



*And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.* 


_Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "_

Poor SSDD, smarter than Einstein, yet his brilliance goes unacknowledged.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.  Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence.  Let me know when you get some evidence.
> ...



Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Here...more from Einstein on the things you are so certain are true...

_Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions._


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.  Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence.  Let me know when you get some evidence.
> ...


But no one has presented any factual observed data.  so far evah!!!

Post up Einstein's observations.  that should shut us up quickly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...*

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
But no one has presented any factual observed data.  so far evah!!!*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


funny, you have no experiment to post up to validate his theory.  right?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


same shit different day.  That's been discussed already, you need some new material that is accurate.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...*
> 
> Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?
> 
> Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.



So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.  

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...*
> ...



Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


huh?  you've provided squat juice.  Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old.  It seems that is all you have.  still no observed experiment.  right?  still you got squat juice.  Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again.  I'll wait. And you know what?  I'm going to write the same thing.  Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
still no observed experiment.  right?* 





There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got.  same old rat hole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


actual data?  what data exactly?  can you prove it came from the atmosphere?  dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times.  and yet you keep introducing it.  fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*actual data? what data exactly?*

The data measuring downward IR from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.

*can you prove it came from the atmosphere?*

Yes.
*
dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times.* 

Right, smart photons, smart emitters.
*
and yet you keep introducing it.* 

Yes, data that highlights your idiocy is useful.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation*

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

*they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data*

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.  and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads.  No experiment that will validate your insane claim.  None, zip.  and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects.  still nothing, zippola.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.
*
can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.*

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.
*
and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.*

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Believe me, I'm not worried about you.
You don't have to have a clue about the science, and you clearly don't, to resist the economy killing idiocy being pushed by the warmer watermelons.

I don't mind that some of my political allies are as dumb as Maxine Waters.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Believe me, there isn't anyone in here talking back radiation that has a clue.  I'm well aware of that.

especially when not one soul can present an experiment on the supposed behavior.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Must suck to believe so strongly in a mathematical model that you will ignore reality and every observation and measurement ever made i favor of it...and then get frustrated when you can't convince others to ignore reality right along with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



It's just you against the world.
Must be lonely being smarter than Einstein.
So misunderstand.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


to date, not one observation of back radiation.  from anyone.  The position you, I and some others in here have is far more logical based on observed global temperatures.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You're an idiot and a liar.  Your concepts on radiative heat transfer and the behavior or CO2 in the atmosphere are complete idiocy. Attempted to debate you on any of this violates the advice of not arguing with fools as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
> ...


None of the alarmists can produce physical evidence and how it is linked.  They cite *opinion without evidence* as their proof.  They can not differentiate conjecture and opinion from real evidence based fact.

The lot here repeats the same pseudo science papers which have *no fact based linkage*.  Not one of Old Frauds, Rollingblunderboy, or Crick (or any one else for that matter).

Its a wide spread problem in Academia and government these days..  They believe the lies they have been spewing devoid of facts.

Every paper that is cited by the alarmists preface their 'opinion' with the words 'may', 'might', 'we believe', etc but never do they quantify how they came to their opinions or demonstrate that all other potential causes are ruled out by scientific process.  Its rather amusing to read these papers they cite and run across these tell tail words and keep from laughing.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2017)

Ok, so I found this link today while wandering around the back radiation Internet, I thought I'd share it.

Harry Dale Huffman

The Earth and Man:  Setting the Stage: Venus:  No Greenhouse Effect

"*Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]

So there is no greenhouse effect.  You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic."*


----------

